op., 2006 WL 692024 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2006) (general allegations which do not adequately
set forth causal connection between actions of individuals sued in their individual capacity and the
alleged constitutional violations are subject to dismissal). Moreover, Plaintiff seems to be urging
pro se the legal rights her son may have. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order dismissing
the First Complaint, a pro se plaintiff may not represent the rights of another in federal court.
The tenth claim is dismissed without prejudice.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The eleventh claim for relief is, again, brought against the individual Defendants in their
individual capacities and also seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Because the individual
Defendants are school officials being sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in their individual capacities,
the Eleventh Amendment does not bar this claim. Price v. Akaka, 928 F.2d at 828.
However, like the tenth claim for relief, the eleventh claim for relief is too vague and fails
to adequately allege a causal connection between the conduct of any of the individual Defendants
and a violation of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not alleged that either
Defendants Hubbard, Cowles, Hannaman, Kanawi, Hadjiaghai, Halfaker, or any Does were
personally involved in depriving Peters of federal constitutional rights. That much is necessary to
allege a § 1983 claim against individuals acting in their individual capacity. Jeffers, 267 F.3d at
915; Hansen, 885 F.2d at 646.
Instead, Peters again alleges that “...the Individual Defendants (in their individual
capacity), and each of them, have denied Plaintiff’s son a FAPE [free and appropriate education]
by refusing and failing to comply with the CDE [California Department of Education] direct order
relief and by failing to comply with VRP [voluntary resolution plan] in retaliation for Plaintiff’s
activist role and public criticism of VUSD and GPACS.”
The facts section of the Third Amended Complaint does not supply the necessary
allegations of causation. As before, the only reference to an action by the California Department
of Education is found in paragraphs 37 to 40. There, according to the Third Amended Complaint,
Vista Unified School District and Guajome Park Academy was to provide some sort of
“assessment, placement, and an educational contract.” The Complaint alleges that Defendant