Hickey v. Donahoe

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART 64 and 65 APRIL 23, 2014 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Defendant's 56 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted; Plaintiff's 59 Motion for Summary Judg ment is denied; Plaintiff's 72 Motion for Reconsideration is overruled; Defendant's 75 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court is overruled. This case is dismissed. Plaintiff has 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint clearly alleging a legal claim related to the 2003 Representative Agreement. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 06/11/2014. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01054-CMA-BNB
LYNDA S. HICKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART APRIL 23, 2014
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on two April 23, 2014 Recommendations
by United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland. (Doc. # 64, 65.) Both
Recommendations are incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Both parties have filed objections to these Recommendations.
(Doc. ## 68, 72.)
As to Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 72), as required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), the
Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including carefully reviewing all
relevant pleadings, the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff=s Objection to the
Report and Recommendation. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that
the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation is not called into question by
Plaintiff=s Objection.

The Court has also reviewed Defendant’s objection (Doc. # 65), which relates
only to Judge Boland’s recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.
# 56.) In essence, Defendant objects to Judge Boland’s determination that Plaintiff
raised a claim related to what has been termed a “Representative Agreement”
apparently entered into between the parties on April 25, 2003. On Judge Boland’s
review of the complaint, Plaintiff raised such a claim but Defendant failed to address its
viability in his motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 64 at 9.) Defendant argues in part that Plaintiff
did not allege sufficient facts to maintain a claim related to this Representative
Agreement, in light of the generally disorganized manner Plaintiff presented her
Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 68 at 1-3.) Defendant made much of the same argument
in the motion to dismiss, broadly alleging that only a complaint that states a plausible
claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 56 at 10
(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).
This Court has previously instructed Plaintiff to clearly present her allegations
of violations of the law. For example, as this Court noted in a previous Order:
[To clearly present her claims,] Plaintiff might use the following
formula, with Plaintiff supplying the necessary laws and reasoning listed
below between the brackets:
Claim 1 – Violation of [insert law] Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant violated [insert law] because he [explain reasoning] .
(Doc. # 48 at 4.)
Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s instructions: the Amended Complaint she
presented (Doc. # 51) is very difficult to read and alleges in a conclusory fashion a

2

number of plausible claims that are not identified or supported with any specificity—let
along in an easy-to-follow framework such as the one suggested by this Court.
Further, Plaintiff should not get the benefit of prevailing on a claim merely
through obfuscation—the only reason Defendant did not provide substantive argument
related to the supposed Representative Agreement claim is because it is not apparent
from the face of the amended complaint that Plaintiff was even relying on such a legal
theory as a basis for liability. Indeed, there are so few facts related to this Agreement
that this Court cannot even assess the government’s alternative arguments that the
claim, if alleged, be dismissed on the merits.
Because this Court adopts and affirms the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
as to all the other claims he rightly identified as raised in the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff’s sole remaining possible claim relates to the April 25, 2003 Representative
Agreement.
This Court will give Plaintiff one final chance to clearly articulate a claim related
to this Agreement. If Plaintiff seeks to continue pursuing this claim, she must file an
amended complaint within thirty days of this order, that is limited to her claim based
on the April 25, 2003 Representative Agreement and which explains clearly what the
agreement was, how it was violated, and the relief she requests for this alleged
violation. Plaintiff should review this Court’s prior order dismissing her original
complaint (Doc. # 48) for guidance on what this Court expects in terms of operative
pleadings. Only when the Court has a clear idea of what exactly Plaintiff is alleging
can the Court evaluate the merits of such a claim.

3

Finally, the Court presumes that the parties can discuss these matters and
Plaintiff’s intentions with regard to further amending her complaint at the scheduling
conference on June 12, 2014. This Court will leave it to the discretion of Magistrate
Judge Boland as to whether it is useful to proceed with such a conference and affirms
his decision denying the Defendant’s motion to vacate. (Doc. # 75)
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 72) is
OVERRULED, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order
vacating the scheduling conference (Doc. # 75) is OVERRULED and the Magistrate
Judge’s decision is AFFIRMED, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection (Doc. # 68) is SUSTAINED
and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is REJECTED to the extent it declined
to address Plaintiff’s possible claim for a breach of the Representative Agreement.
Aside from the analysis related to the Representative Agreement, the
Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. ## 64,
65) are AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as Orders of this Court. Pursuant to the
Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 56) is
GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 59)
is DENIED.

4

Finally, as described above in this Order, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff
has 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint clearly alleging a
legal claim related to the 2003 Representative Agreement.
DATED: June 11, 2014
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

5