Bell v. United States Department of Interior et al

Filing 48

ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/24/12 ORDERING that the July 26, 2012 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is vacated; Plaintiff's request to file electronically is granted; and RECOMM ENDING that Defendants' June 25, 2012 motion to dismiss be granted; and Defendants Donald Glaser, Katherine Thompson and Joni Ward be dismissedf rom this action with prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr;. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

YOLANDA Y. BELL,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CIV 2:12-cv-1414-GEB-JFM (PS)

vs.
UNITED STATES DEP’T OF INTERIOR,
KENNETH SALAZAR, Secretary, et al.,

ORDER AND

14
Defendants.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

15
/
16
This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The individual
17
defendants Donald Glaser, Katherine Thompson and Joni Ward seek dismissal of this action with
18
prejudice as to them as a matter of law. The court has determined that the matter shall be
19
submitted upon the record and briefs on file and accordingly, the date for hearing of this matter
20
shall be vacated. Local Rule 230. On review of the motion and opposition, and good cause
21
appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
22
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
23
Plaintiff, an African-American female proceeding in pro per, initiated this action
24
on December 27, 2011 in the Northern District of California and is proceeding on an amended
25
complaint filed June 12, 2012 against defendants Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the Department
26
1

1

of Interior (“DOI”); Donald Glaser, Regional Director of the DOI; Katherine Thompson,

2

Assistant Regional Director of the DOI; and Joni Ward, Employee Relations Specialist for the

3

DOI. Plaintiff’s suit is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

4

§ 2000e et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, and alleging race discrimination,

5

retaliation, and hostile work environment.

6

This case was transferred to this court on May 24, 2012. On June 25, 2012,

7

defendant Salazar filed an answer. Also on June 25, 2012, the moving defendants filed the

8

instant motion to dismiss. Plaintiff opposes this motion.

9
10
11
12

Also pending is plaintiff’s June 15, 2012 motion for permission to file
electronically. Doc. No. 36. This request will be granted.
DISCUSSION
Defendants Glaser, Thompson and Ward seek dismissal of this action with

13

prejudice as to them on the ground that plaintiff’s Title VII and Rehabilitation Act claims cannot

14

be brought against individual defendants. Defendants’ point is well-taken. “[T]he Civil Rights

15

Act of 1964, as amended, provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in

16

federal employment.” Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976). In

17

a civil action brought pursuant to Title VII, “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as

18

appropriate, shall be the defendant.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–16. The Ninth Circuit has

19

“consistently held that Title VII does not provide a cause of action for damages against

20

supervisors or fellow employees.” Holly D. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., 339 F.3d 1158, 1179 (9th Cir.

21

2003) (internal citations omitted). Thus, while a Title VII plaintiff may bring claims against the

22

head of an agency in his or her official capacity, federal officials cannot be sued in their

23

individual capacities. See Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001);

24

White v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 652 F.2d 913, 916 (9th Cir. 1981). This requirement of Title VII

25

also applies to claims alleged pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1)

26

(making the remedies, procedures and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16 available in
2

1

claims asserting violations of 29 U.S.C. § 791); Lopez v. Johnson, 333 F.3d 959, 961 (9th Cir.

2

2003) (per curiam) (“For complaints filed under section 501, the [Rehabilitation Act] borrows

3

‘the remedies, procedures, and rights’ from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”) (citing 29

4

U.S.C. § 794a(a)(1)); Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Serv., 884 F.2d 1194, 1196 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1989)

5

(stating that “the Rehabilitation Act simply makes available to victims of handicap

6

discrimination the rights and remedies embodied in Title VII,” and holding that the head of the

7

United States Postal Service was the only appropriately named defendant).

8

Plaintiff counters that an agency head can include heads of regional offices of an

9

agency and, as such, defendants Glaser and Thompson are proper defendants. Similarly, plaintiff

10

argues that Ward, as the head of a subdivision of the DOI, is also properly named as a defendant.

11

The cases relied on by plaintiff in support of this proposition, however, are inapposite as they are

12

cases addressing claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.

13

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. The July 26, 2012 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is vacated;

16

2. Plaintiff’s request to file electronically is granted; and

17

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

18

1. Defendants’ June 25, 2012 motion to dismiss be granted; and

19

2. Defendants Donald Glaser, Katherine Thompson and Joni Ward be dismissed

20

from this action with prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

21
22

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen

23

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

24

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

25

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised

26

/////
3

1

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

2

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 95 1 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: July 24, 2012.

4
5
6
7

/014;bell1414.mtd

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4