Monday, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins threw out Peter Colombo’s multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the Palo Alto Unified School District. Colombo said that the school district discriminated against him and violated his due process rights after he was accused of sexual assault of a child.
In January 2022, the husband of a former student said that Colombo had raped his wife at Greene Middle School when she was in the sixth grade.
After the police looked into it, Colombo was charged with rape and put on leave by the district. However, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office later dropped the charges against him because there was not enough proof.
Back in February, Colombo sued the district for $20 million, saying that they had slandered him and put him in jail without a warrant, among other things.
But after a case management meeting in July, Evan Nelson, Colombo’s lawyer, changed the complaint to drop all but three claims: violation of substantive due process, violation of procedural due process, and discrimination based on gender and disability.
According to court papers, Nelson said that the district had purposely hidden evidence that would have shown Colombo to be innocent and that they were biased against him because he was a male teacher with a “inactive physical/mental impairment of alcoholism.”
The district, for its part, said it did not hide the information in question or treat Colombo unfairly, as his lawyer said.
The judge threw out Colombo’s first two claims of substantive and procedural due process on Monday, saying that the government had sovereign protection.
The judge said that these claims cannot be made against the district or its leaders because they are protected by the law. The plaintiff can not file again because the first two claims were thrown out with prejudice.
The judge also threw out the rest of the complaint, which included Colombo’s claims of disability and gender discrimination, because it lacked “any supporting factual explanation.” However, Colombo could make an updated complaint if she wanted to.
Colombo’s lawyer has until September 30 to either file a new case or say he does not plan to, the judge wrote.
Nelson did not answer right away when asked what he thought about the judge’s decision to throw out his case and if he plans to re-file.
Palo Alto Unified did not say anything about the choice.
The judge didn’t “throw out” the lawsuit. He dismissed with leave to amend, which means the claims just need to be clarified or facts restated in a different manner. The only claims dismissed without leave to amend are the Section 1983 claim against the District and against the individual defendants in their official capacities. The Section 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities and the discrimination claims will be restated or amended and refiled before the September 30, 2024 deadline. Leave to amend to add a new claim for reverse discrimination under Title IX will also be sought based on recent Ninth Circuit authority. The claims are solidly based. What was done to Mr. Colombo is a travesty and, if necessary, he intends to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.