Walker v. CA Employment Development Dept.

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing 11 Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The case management conference previously set for June 30, 2017 is VACATED and the Clerk is instructed to close the file. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on June 27, 2017. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/27/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
COLLEEN DENISE WALKER,

7

Case No. 17-cv-00071-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT
TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 11

12

Plaintiff Colleen Denise Walker, pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action alleging

13

employment discrimination by her former employer, the California Employment Development

14

Department (“EDD”). Walker amended her complaint once before the Court had reviewed its

15

sufficiency, and the Court thereafter dismissed her first amended complaint under 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Order Dismissing

17

Am. Compl. (dkt. 10).1 In that order, the Court held that “it is not enough for Walker to merely

18

assert that her treatment at EDD was improperly motivated by” her membership in a protected

19

class, i.e., “her race, her fiancé‟s national origin, or by her status as a veteran—she must explain

20

what happened that supports that conclusion” in order the satisfy the pleading standard of

21

plausibility articulated by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

22
23
24

554 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2008). Order Dismissing Am. Compl. at 11. The
Court granted Walker leave to amend her complaint if she was “aware of facts supporting the
conclusion that her treatment at EDD was motivated by her membership in a protected class.” Id.
Walker has now filed a second amended complaint (dkt. 11), and the Court now reviews

25
26

that complaint to determine whether it states a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28

27
1

28

Walker v. CA Emp’t Dev. Dep’t, No. 17-cv-00071-JCS, 2017 WL 1246993 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5,
2017).

1

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). The second amended

2

complaint asserts a claim under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Walker was

3

subject to discrimination on the basis of her fiancé‟s Iranian national origin. 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3,

4

9. The second amended complaint does not, however, add any factual allegations to support the

5

conclusion that Walker‟s fiancé‟s national origin was the cause of her alleged mistreatment.

6

As noted in the Court‟s previous order, “a Title VII plaintiff must generally present

7

„actions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that

8

it is more likely than not that such action was based upon race or another impermissible

9

criterion.‟” Order Dismissing Am. Compl. at 8 (quoting Bodett v. CoxCom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

743 (9th Cir. 2004)). Because Walker has not presented any factual allegations supporting an
inference that any adverse action was based on her fiancé‟s national origin, or on any other
“impermissible criterion” under Title VII, her complaint must once again be dismissed for failure
to state a claim. In light of Walker‟s failure to resolve the deficiencies identified in the previous
order, the Court finds that further amendment would be futile, and hereby DISMISSES this action
without leave to amend.2
The case management conference previously set for June 30, 2017 is hereby VACATED,

16
17

and the Clerk is instructed to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 27, 2017
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Walker has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
2