Barbara Gipson v. Secretary, U.S. Department of

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Barbara L. Gipson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11088

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11088
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-04133-LMM
BARBARA L. GIPSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 17, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Barbara Gipson appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing her
complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Gipson filed over 1,000 pages meant as an amended complaint and

Case: 16-11088

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 2 of 6

supporting documents, even after the magistrate judge gave her specific instruction
on how to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court
adopted the magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint with
prejudice. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Gipson was fired from her job at the U.S. Department of Treasury. After
Gipson filed her complaint against the Treasury Department, the magistrate judge
found her complaint had a number of pleading deficiencies and ordered Gipson to
amend her complaint to comply with six directions:
1) provide a factual background section with facts relevant to all
claims, presented in logical order in individually numbered
paragraphs; 2) allege under a separate count each cause of action
pursuant to a specific federal (or state) statute and provide relevant
facts including approximate dates of relevant occurrences and specific
unlawful actions taken by Defendant; 3) not reaffirm or reallege
factual allegations from preceding counts; 4) not contain any
references to the Pledge of Allegiance or any part of the Constitution
unless the statute for which Plaintiff brings a cause of action is created
pursuant to a particular amendment of the constitution; 5) allege
specific facts demonstrating that the settlement agreement she entered
with Defendant is invalid if Plaintiff intended to set aside the
settlement agreement; and 6) clearly state the grounds for damages if
she seeks damages.
The magistrate judge advised Gipson that failure to comply with these directions
would result in a recommendation to the district court that her complaint be
dismissed.

2

Case: 16-11088

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 3 of 6

Gipson then filed an “amended complaint” consisting of the magistrate
judge’s order along with twelve attachments containing over 1,000 pages. One
attachment contained four headings with various allegations: (1) Under “Age and
Disability Discrimination,” Gipson alleged the Treasury Department knew about
her health issues and received a doctor letter advising against Gipson using a
phone, yet it required her to use a phone. Gipson also added she “was harassed,
intimidated, provoked, written-up, penalized and eventual[ly] fired by the
Treasury,” but included no facts to support this allegation. (2) Under “Health and
Medical Issues,” Gipson simply alleged the Treasury Department refused or
ignored her applications for reassignment or reasonable accommodation, and in
doing so, failed to consider her age and health issues. (3) Under “Gross Misconduct & Negligence,” Gipson realleged the Treasury Department fired her
before her reasonable accommodation request could be processed and that it
ignored a letter from her doctor. She added—with no supporting facts—that
“[e]mployee medical information and records were not treated as confidential or
private information.” (4) Under “Unethical & Unfair Work Ethics,” Gipson again
realleged claims about her reasonable accommodation request and doctor letter.
Gipson added she was “denied promotions for speaking out against internal and
service wide problems,” including low morale and equal or fair treatment for
employees. The remainder of her allegations focused on the Treasury Department
3

Case: 16-11088

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 4 of 6

not following internal procedures, not investigating her grievances and complaints,
assigning her only to complex cases, and giving her the same performance
evaluation for four straight years.
The magistrate judge found that Gipson “failed to again provide what
statute(s) to which she brings her claim(s) and specific facts in support,” and that
Gipson “made her amended complaint more confusing.” The district court agreed
that Gipson “fail[ed] to assert specific facts in relation to specific, relevant
statutes” and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
II.
“We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint, under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for relief . . . .”
Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta Cty., 708 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th
Cir. 2013). “[W]e accept all factual allegations as true and consider them in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Brooks v. Warden, 800 F.3d 1295, 1300
(11th Cir. 2015). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quotation omitted).
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United
4

Case: 16-11088

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 5 of 6

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). “Yet even in the case
of pro se litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto
counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain
an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir.
2014) (quotation omitted).
Gipson’s complaint, construed liberally, does not meet “the threshold
requirement of [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 8(a)(2) that the plain statement
possess enough heft to show that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007) (quotations omitted
and alteration adopted). Gipson’s amended complaint contains only conclusory
allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and mishandling of private
medical information. It does not include specific acts that caused these injuries,
specific people who contributed to these injuries, or specific dates on which these
injuries occurred. Nor does it tie particular facts to specific statutes. Gipson’s
amended complaint is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not
obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Weiland v. Palm Beach
Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015). “[A] complaint [does
not] suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quotations omitted and alteration
adopted). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain
5

Case: 16-11088

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 6 of 6

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give
the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964 (quotations omitted and alteration
adopted). Gipson’s amended complaint fails to give fair notice to the Treasury
Department. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed Gipson’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.

6