Case: Groveman v. UC Davis
24-cv-01421 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Filed Date: May 17, 2024
Closed Date: Aug. 27, 2025
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case challenged UC Davis and several administrators for allegedly permitting an on-campus protest encampment that reportedly blocked central campus access, promoted hostility toward Jews and Israel, and included some participants unaffiliated with the university. Other cases involving universities’ responses to speech and activity concerning Israel and Palestine, including matters of antisemitism or anti-Palestinian expression, can be found here.
On May 17, 2024, a Jewish UC Davis community member filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against UC Davis, the Regents of the University of California, and various administrators. The complaint asserted claims under § 1983 (Equal Protection and Free Exercise), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees. The case was initially assigned to Judge Daniel J. Calabretta, but after Judge Calabretta recused himself on December 18, 2024, it was reassigned to Judge William B. Shubb.
In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that defendants violated the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses by selectively enforcing university policies and allowing the encampment to block campus access and interfere with his expression of Jewish identity and Zionist views; denied him participation in federally funded programs and campus political life because of his religion and national identity in violation of Title VI; and prevented safe mobility due to his disability in violation of the ADA.
On September 4, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that removed UC Davis as a defendant, expanded the factual allegations, and added individual-capacity claims against certain administrators. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 17, 2024.
On February 4, 2025, the court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety. It held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege intentional discrimination under Equal Protection or a burden on religious exercise under the Free Exercise Clause, and that qualified immunity applied. The court also found that the plaintiff lacked Title VI standing because he was not participating in a federally funded university program, and that the ADA claim failed because UC Davis provided reasonable alternative accessible routes. Concluding that further amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend.
The plaintiff moved for a new trial on March 4, 2025, asking the court to vacate its order and permit amendment. On April 10, 2025, the court denied the motion, finding that the proposed second amended complaint still failed to cure the deficiencies in any claim. Specifically, the court determined that the new Equal Protection and Free Exercise allegations still failed to connect the defendants’ conduct to the protesters’ actions or overcome qualified immunity; plaintiff’s added assertions of his ties to UC Davis did not establish statutory standing under Title VI; and the amended ADA allegations continued to show only that plaintiff could not use the specific path occupied by the encampment, not that he was unable to reach any destination on campus.
The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal under Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1 after the plaintiff failed to file an opening brief.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Dahlia Gottlieb (3/16/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68546839/parties/groveman-v-uc-davis/
Rosenberg-Wohl, David M (California)
Cowan, Matthew (California)
PHV, Anton Metlitsky (California)
PHV, Jennifer B. (California)
PHV, Meaghan McLaine (California)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68546839/groveman-v-uc-davis/
Last updated March 24, 2026, 4:49 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Title VI Anti-Palestinian/Antisemitism cases
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 17, 2024
Closing Date: Aug. 27, 2025
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff is a Jewish resident of Davis, California who is also a UC Davis community member.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
President of the University of California
Regents of the University of California
Other
Clare Shinnerl (in her official capacity as Vice Chancellor for Finance, Operations & Administration and in her individual capacity)
Gary S. May (in his official capacity as the Chancellor of UC Davis and in his individual capacity)
Mary Croughan (in her official capacity as Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of UC Davis and in her individual capacity)
Pablo Reguerin (in his official capacity as Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and in his individual capacity)
Renetta Garrison Tull (in her official capacity as Vice Chancellor for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Co-Chair, Next Generation Campus Safety Task Force and in her individual capacity)
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of California 24-cv-01421
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-03027
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Religion(s):
Case Summary of Groveman v. UC Davis, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/47291/ (last updated 3/16/2026).