Edwards et al v. Department of State Hospitals (DSH) - Coalinga

Filing 21

ORDER Granting Defendant's 8 Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/19/2014. Amended Complaint due by 1/26/2015.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

LARRY EDWARDS and ALAN HILDRETH, )
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS- )
COALINGA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-1435-BAM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND

15
16
On September 13, 2014, Plaintiffs Larry Edwards and Alan Hildreth (“Plaintiffs”),

17
18

proceeding pro se, filed an action against Defendant Department of State Hospitals - Coalinga

19

(“Defendant” of “DSH”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). On

20

October 29, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike pursuant to Rule

21

12(b)(6) and Rule 12(f), respectively.1 (Doc. 8.)2 Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on

22

November 12, 2014 (Doc. 17), to which Defendant filed a reply on December 5, 2014. (Doc.

23

19.) On December 5, 2014, the Court deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral

24
1

25
26
27
28

Defendant also move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for Plaintiffs failure
to exhaust their administrative remedies, however the Court does not reach this argument. See Taylor v. Blank, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54290, 2014 WL 1577313, *4 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not
the appropriate subject of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)).
2
On November 12, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties consented to have a United States
Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment.
Accordingly, on November 12, 2014, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe for all
purposes. (Doc. 16).
1

1

argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for December 12, 2014. (Doc. 20.)

2

considered the moving, opposition, reply papers, and the entire file, Defendant’s Motions are

3

GRANTED and Plaintiffs will have leave to amend their Complaint.

4

Having

BACKGROUND

5

Plaintiffs bring suit alleging “ongoing continued racial discrimination” due to

6

Defendant’s display of racially offensive photographs at the “Department of Police Services.”

7

Compl. at pg. 1. Plaintiffs assert four causes of action in connection with their employment at

8
9
10

the Department of State Hospitals in Coalinga: (1) discrimination based on race under Title VII;
(2) harassment/hostile work environment;3 (3) gross negligence; and (4) “intentional emotional
distress.” Compl. at pg. 1.

11

The facts alleged by Plaintiffs comprise of a short one-paragraph narrative as follows:

12

14

Located inside the department of Police Services is a case displaying photographs
with Lieutenants, Acting Lieutenants, Sergeants, Acting Sergeants and officers. In
these photographs, the above mentioned individuals are wearing an Afro and
Dashiki mocking the proud heritage of the African-American culture. These
photographs are still being displayed to date.

15

Compl. at pg 2.

16

Defendant brings its Motion to Dismiss on two grounds: lack of subject matter

17

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and failure to state a claim for which

18

relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 9 at 2).

13

19

LEGAL STANDARD

20

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

21

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). Where the plaintiff fails to allege

22

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint may be

23
24
25

dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A
dismissal for failure to state a claim is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule

26
27
28

3

The terms “hostile work environment” and “harassment” are used interchangeably for the purposes of Title
VII in that the elements of a claim under either label are the same. Jones v. Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168284 *15 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012).
2

1

12(b)(6) and may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of

2

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys.,

3

LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).

4

When the court reviews a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all of the complaint’s material

5

allegations of fact are taken as true, and the facts are construed in the light most favorable to the

6

non-moving party. Marceau v. Blackfeet Hous. Auth., 540 F.3d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 2008); Vignolo

7

v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the court need not accept conclusory

8
9
10
11
12
13

allegations, allegations contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint or matters properly
subject to judicial notice, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. DanielsHall v. National Educ. Ass’n., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). Although they may provide the
framework of a complaint, legal conclusions are not accepted as true and “[t]hreadbare recitals of
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

14
ANALYSIS
15
A.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Before addressing the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court has reviewed

Plaintiffs’ complaint and finds that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8. Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d) further provides that “[e]ach allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct.” As the Supreme Court has held, Rule 8(a) “requires a
‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

23

n.3. Although the Court must construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint liberally, a plaintiff

24

nonetheless must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to

25

give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they

26

rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v.

27

Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

28
3

1

Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to set forth a minimum factual and legal basis for each

2

claim sufficient to provide defendant fair notice of the factual basis for each claim, the legal

3

basis for each claim, or the specific claims Plaintiffs are purporting to raise against the

4

defendant. Plaintiffs list a series of allegations including “discrimination, harassment, hostile

5

work environment, and intentional emotional distress” based on the display of insulting

6

photographs, but Plaintiffs’ complaint lacks sufficient factual detail. Compl. at pg. 1.

7

Plaintiffs must set forth facts to support each claim. For example, Plaintiffs must allege the facts

8
9
10
11
12
13

Instead,

and details surrounding the photographs, and any resulting harm from the display of the
offensive photographs. Further, Plaintiffs must allege their relationship to DSH and whether
they are members of a protected class. While pro se complaints should be construed liberally,
Plaintiffs’ complaint currently does not provide the opposing party with the required opportunity
to adequately respond. In order for Plaintiffs to state a sufficient claim for relief they must state
the legal basis for relief and then set forth in plain language a brief description of facts, that if

14
true, would prove that specific claim. This process of (1) stating the legal basis for relief, (2)
15
determining what elements are required to state the claim, and then (3) briefly setting forth the
16
17

actual facts that prove those elements must be repeated for each claim Plaintiffs wish to make.
Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Rule 8(a) constitutes an independent basis for dismissal

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

of a complaint. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. N. Coast
Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). However, in the discussion that follows, the
Court will briefly describe the elements of claims for discrimination and harassment under Title
VII, and will briefly discuss why Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state any cognizable claims.
B.

Title VII Claims
1. Racial Discrimination
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for racial discrimination.

To

26

establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, a Plaintiff must prove

27

that he (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) performed his job in a satisfactory manner, (3) was

28

subject to an adverse employment action, and (4) similarly-situated individuals outside his
4

1

protected class were treated more favorably. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir.

2

2003) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). Though

3

heightened pleading standards are not mandated in Title VII cases, Plaintiffs must plead

4

sufficient facts to state the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination. Riverside Healthcare

5

System, LP, 534 F.3d at 1122.

6

Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is devoid of allegations as to any of these elements. Plaintiffs

7

do not allege that they are members of a protected class nor do they allege any employment

8

related action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ racial

9
10
11
12
13

discrimination claim. Plaintiffs however will be granted leave to amend to file a first amended
complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must
afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). In
the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs MUST state the specific factual conduct that supports
Plaintiffs’ right to relief on a Title VII racial discrimination claim.

14
2. Harassment/Hostile Work Environment
15
Defendant also moves to dismiss as insufficiently plead Plaintiffs’ harassment/hostile
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

work environment claim. (Doc. 9 at 3). Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to
allege with specificity an adverse employment action. Plaintiffs respond that “the pictures
themselves show not only the racial aspect of discrimination, but also harassment.” (Doc. 17 at
1).
In order to state a claim for workplace harassment or hostile work environment, a
plaintiff must allege facts indicating that (1) the plaintiff “was ‘subjected to verbal or physical

23

conduct’ because of his race, (2) ‘the conduct was unwelcome,’ and (3) ‘the conduct was

24

sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the Plaintiff’s] employment and create

25

and abusive work environment.’” Manatt v. Bank of Am., 339 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003) (reciting

26

elements for a hostile work environment claim). While Title VII “affords employees the right to

27

work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” it is not “a

28

general civility code.” Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (U.S. 1986). Indeed,
5

1

the alleged conduct must be so extreme that it effectively changes the terms and conditions of

2

employment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998).

3

Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to satisfy only the second element of a hostile work

4

environment claim—that the conduct was unwelcome. However, Plaintiffs do not allege any of

5

the other elements to satisfy a hostile work environment claim. For instance, the photographs’

6

display of cultural appropriation—or the exploitation of elements of one culture by members of

7

a different cultural group—while likely insulting, is not alleged to have been so pervasive or

8

numerous to constitute an abusive work environment. Indeed, the complaint contains only vague

9

and conclusory allegations such that Plaintiffs were “aggrieved by the Defendant’s display of

10

racially discriminating degrading photographs” resulting in “harassment” and a “hostile work

11
12
13
14

environment.” Compl. at pg. 1. Even if taken as true, these allegations are too vague and
conclusory to give the Defendant fair notice of the nature of Plaintiffs’ claim. See Riverside
Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d at 1122 (dismissing plaintiff’s claim because plaintiff did not “allege
sufficient facts to state the elements of a hostile work environment claim” and thus failed to give

15
the defendant fair notice). Plaintiffs are given leave to amend their hostile work environment
16
17
18

claim.
C.

The Court declines to address the state law claims of gross negligence and “intentional

19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiffs’ Remaining State Law Claims

emotional distress” until Plaintiffs state a federal claim. As this Court’s jurisdiction is based
upon federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, the Court informs the parties that, in
the absence of a viable federal claim, it will likely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims.
D.

Leave to Amend the Complaint

25

Rule 15(a) is very liberal and leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so

26

requires.” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006)

27

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). This “policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.”

28
6

1
2
3
4

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). As the
allegations are such that amendment may permit Plaintiffs to state sufficient plausible claims,
the Court grants leave to amend all claims.
E.
Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief

5

Last, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for “$2.5 million dollars” for

6

compensatory damages should be stricken under Rule 12(f). Under Rule 12(f), “the court may

7

order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

8

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” A motion to strike may be used to strike any part of the

9

prayer for relief when the damages sought are not recoverable as a matter of law.” Bureerong

10
11
12

v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1479 n.34 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
Title VII precludes damage awards against the Government over $300,000.00. See 42
U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) (Title VII). Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) states:

13
14
15
16
17

The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for
future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish,
loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of
punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each
complaining party -....
(D) in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or
more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $ 300,000.

18
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief is GRANTED.
19
ORDER
20
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
22
23
24

1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint is GRANTED;

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief is GRANTED;

3.

Plaintiffs’ racial discrimination and harassment/hostile work environment claims
are DISMISSED with leave to amend;

25
26
27

4.

Plaintiffs’ state law claims for gross negligence and “intentional emotional
distress” are DISMISSED with leave to amend;

28
7

1

5.

2
3

Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of
entry of this Order;

6.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 19, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8