FLORES v. KLEIST

Plaintiff alleges that "[t]his cause of action is based on Defendants' failure to provide necessary due process under the 14th [sic] Amendment . . ., Defendants' violation of [California Military and Veterans Code section 394] . . . and violation of 42 U.S.C., Section 1981." However, only Plaintiff's procedural due process claim related to Defendants' failure to provide him with a conference with the Superintendent survives Defendants' summary judgment motions. Further, Plaintiff has alleged his procedural due process claims against Defendants "in [t]heir [p]ersonal [c]apacities [o]nly." Section 1983, however, "does not permit injunctive relief against state officials sued in their individual as distinct from their official capacity." Greenawalt v. Indiana Dept. of Corr., 397 F.3d 587, 589 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Luder v. Endicott, 253 F.3d 1020, 1024-25 (7th Cir. 2001)). Therefore, each Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is granted.

For the reasons stated above, Defendant Von Kleist and the School Board Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted and denied in part.

Dated: September 9, 2010.