Davis-Knotts v. State of California

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 7/6/2015. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
CYNTHIA D. DAVIS-KNOTTS,

4

Case No. 15-cv-01518-VC

Plaintiff,
5
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

7

Defendants.
8
9
On May 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court explained that without any details showing: (1) any of the

12

defendants' alleged actions were adverse employment actions taken because of the plaintiff's

13

disability; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for hire in a position but was rejected in favor of a

14

younger candidate of equal or lesser qualifications; or (3) the defendants refused to hire the

15

plaintiff on the basis of genetic information or otherwise violated the Genetic Information

16

Nondiscrimination Act, the complaint failed to state a claim. The Court offered the plaintiff one

17

final chance to amend her complaint to include sufficient facts to show "a plausible entitlement to

18

relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559 (2007).
On June 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint, asserting claims

19
20

against the State of California and the State Compensation Insurance Fund for violations of the

21

Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Genetic

22

Nondiscrimination Act.1 In the Third Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she left her

23

position as a Key Data Operator with the State Compensation Insurance Fund following a work-

24

related injury. The plaintiff further alleges that "after my work related injury I continued to return

25
26
1

27
28

Also on June 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed a document requesting that the Court "review the
inheritance of [the plaintiff's] father," but this request is unrelated to the plaintiff's current lawsuit
and therefore the Court will not consider it. See Docket No. 10, Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

1

and seeking [sic] reinstatement" over a 15-year period, but was "[n]ever hired or reinstated. State

2

of California Personnel Board agency misinformation given about my work history. . . .

3

Harmful/Long term affect [sic] of this misinformation given about me."

4

The most specific allegation in the complaint is that sometime in 2012 the plaintiff called

5

Karen Shu seeking a position with the Public Utilities Commission, and that the supervisor at the

6

Public Utilities Commission subsequently called the plaintiff and informed her that she did not

7

qualify for the position. The complaint states that "[a]ge was the motivating factor," but includes

8

no facts to support this conclusion.

9

On June 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a document containing further information in support
of her claim. (Docket No. 23.) This document contains additional details about the positions

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plaintiff sought and various individuals she spoke with while pursuing employment. But it

12

provides no facts suggesting that the defendants chose not to rehire the plaintiff (or took any other

13

adverse action against her) because of her age, disability, or genetic information.

14

As the Court explained in its April 8, 2015 order dismissing the plaintiff's initial complaint,

15

while a complaint does not need to provide "detailed factual allegations," it does require the

16

plaintiff to provide "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."

17

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). This means that a

18

complaint must offer more than labels and conclusions. A complaint will not state a claim if it

19

provides only "'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id.

20

The Third Amended Complaint does not provide any of the details the Court explained

21

were necessary in order for the plaintiff to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

22

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 6, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

28
2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CYNTHIA D. DAVIS-KNOTTS,

Case No. 15-cv-01518-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 6, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20

Cynthia D. Davis-Knotts
7501 S. El Dorado Street
#7
French Camp, CA 95231

21
22

Dated: July 6, 2015

23
24
25

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA
3