The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff filed a complaint on May 23, 2011, naming the Mariposa County School District and the following individuals as Defendants: Kristie Dunbar, Eldon Henderson, Judy Eppler, Joe Cardoso, Kimberly Forsythe-Allison, Sue Carter, Jay Fowler and David Naranjo. (Doc. 2.) The Court construed Plaintiff to assert claims arising under Title 42 of the United States Code sections 1981, 1983 and 2000e-2(a). On June 6, 2011, this Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, and granting him leave to amend. (Doc. 5)
On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").*fn1 In addition to the Defendants named in the original complaint,*fn2 Plaintiff has added Mariposa High School*fn3 and Vicki Bustos as named Defendants. The FAC asserts claims arising under Title 42 of the United States Code section 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. It also asserts state law claims arising under the California Business and Professions, Public Contract, and Education Codes. (Doc. 6.) Generally speaking, Plaintiff's complaint alleges racially discriminatory attitudes and conduct by school officials that have purportedly prevented him from equal access to sports officiating contracts over a period of time. (See Doc. 6 at 7-13.)
Plaintiff has failed to sign the FAC. Unsigned documents cannot be considered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131(b). Because Plaintiff will be given a final opportunity to amend his complaint as outlined herein, the Court elects not strike the entire pleading for Plaintiff's failure to sign the document. However, Plaintiff is instructed that any amended complaint will not be considered unless it is signed.
In the FAC, Plaintiff contends jurisdiction arising under Title 28 of the United States Code sections 1331 and 1343, and also under section 1346 "because the United States of America is a party." (Doc. 6 at 3-4.)
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to sections 1331 and 1343 of Title 28 of the United States Code because Plaintiff has asserted claims arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. However, as Plaintiff was expressly and previously advised, the United States is not a party to this action. (See Doc. 5 at 4.) Therefore, jurisdiction does not arise under that provision.
Plaintiff's Federal Claims
1. Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code
Plaintiff's first claim, against all Defendants, asserts allegations arising under section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code. (Doc. 6 at 13-17.)
Title 42 of the United States Code section 1981 provides as follows:
Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) "Make and enforce contracts" defined For purposes of this section the term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by non-governmental discrimination and ...