Rice v. James

Filing 22

ORDER finding as moot 5 Motion to Dismiss; Finding as moot 6 Motion for More Definite Statement; Granting 18 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/05/2017. (jlh)

IN THE

UNITED

FOR THE

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

ANGELA RICE,

*

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

*

HARRY B.

JAMES III,

CV

117-039

*

Individually and in his Official *
Capacity as Judge of Richmond
*
County Probate Court, and
*
AUGUSTA,

GEORGIA,

*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

This case is brought under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of

Plaintiff

Angela

1964

Rice's

("Title VII")

dismissal

Richmond County Probate Court.

to

amend

jointly
James")

her

complaint

employed

Rice moves

include

Defendants

employment

the

the Court for leave

allegations

Harry

with

B.

that

James

she

III

was

("Judge

and the City of Augusta; to explain that her 42 U.S.C.

1981 claim will be
racial

by

to

from

and revolves around

enforced through § 1983;

discrimination

and

retaliation

facts that will support her § 1983

to distinguish her

claims;

claim.1

§

and

(Doc.

to

include

18,

1-2.)

Judge James opposes this motion and claims it is futile since

1 Judge James has filed a motion for a more definite statement, which is
presently before the Court.

(Doc. 6.)

the

amended

(Doc.

20-1,

complaint
1).

would

still be

subject

to

dismissal.2

This Court finds that some of Rice's claims are

viable and therefore leave to amend should be granted.

Amendments
Federal

should
Civ.

to

Rules

of

pleadings
Civil

"freely give

P.

15(a)(2).

for undue delay,

App'x 531,

538

are

governed

Procedure,

which

leave when justice so
However,

fairness,

(11th Cir.

the

Court

or futility.

2010) .

has

by

Rule

states

power

did

not

Judge

comply

James

with

complains

Rule

4

of

of

that

requires."
to

An amendment

is

the

courts

Fed.
deny

Chen v. Lester,

the complaint would still be subject to dismissal.

First,

15

R.

leave

364

F.

futile when

Id.

that

the process

the

Federal

Rice

Rules

of

served

Civil

Procedure and therefore an amended claim would still be subject

to dismissal.

Apparently, Rice served Judge James with the City

of Augusta's summons and made the same mistake when she served
the City.

However,

liberally

construed

Rule 4 "is a flexible rule that should be

so

long

as

a

party

receives

sufficient

notice of the complaint."

Sanderford v. Prudential Ins. Co. of

Am.,

(11th

902

F.2d

897,

900

Cir.

1990).

The

Court

discretion to extend the deadline for service of process.

R.

Civ.

P.

4 (m) .

This

option

is

even

available

plaintiff has not shown good cause for her mistake.

when

has
Fed.

the

Horenkamp

2 Judge James has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is presently
before the Court.

(Doc.

5.)

v.

Van Winkle

Relief

&

would be

Co.,

402

F.3d

appropriate,

1129,

for

1132-33

example,

(11th

when

Cir.

the

2005).

statute

of

limitations would prevent the plaintiff from refiling her claim.
Id.

More

than

right-to-sue

18 0

letter

days
and

would be time-barred.
Rice

is

directed

to

have

passed

therefore

her

See 42 U.S.C.
amend

the

since

Rice

refiled

received

Title

2000e-5(e).

summons

in

this

VII

her

claim

Accordingly,
case

and

serve

them upon the appropriate defendant with the amended complaint.
See Fed.

R.

Civ.

Second,

P.

Judge

untimely

because

receiving

her

2000e-5(f).

(11th Cir.

4(a)(2).

James

it

was

right-to-sue

Green v.

2002) .

If

asserts

not

that

filed

letter,

as

within

complaint

ninety

required by

Union Foundry Co.,

the date of

Rice's

days

42

is

of

U.S.C.

281 F.3d 1229,

receipt

is

§

1233-34

in question,

the

Eleventh Circuit presumes that a right-to-sue letter is received
within three days after it is mailed.
Financial

Rice's
attaches

Corp.,

179

opposition
the

to

envelope

F.3d

1337,

Judge
of

her

1342

James's

Zillyette v.
(11th

motion

right-to-sue

claims is postmarked January 4, 2017.3

Cir.

to

Capital One
1999).

In

dismiss,

she

letter,

which

she

(Doc. 9, Exhibit 2).

If

3 The Court may look beyond the face of the complaint without converting a
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment if the fact is central
to the plaintiff's claim and is undisputed.
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d
1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002) .
Courts routinely do this with EEOC documents.
See Rogers v. Shinseki, No. 112-CV-194, 2014 WL 1093147, at *4, n.9 (S.D. Ga.
2014); Perrymond v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 1:09-CV-1936-TWT-AJB, 2010 WL
987218, at *6

(N.D. Ga.

2010),

adopted in relevant part by 2010 WL 925178.

this is true,
2017,

the presumed date of delivery would be January 7,

and Rice's complaint would be timely.

Rice proposes

Third,

to

amend her complaint

James's office is covered by Title VII.
VII,

to show Judge

To be subject to Title

an entity must employ at least fifteen people.

2000e(b).

To meet this requirement,

42 U.S.C.

§

Rice argues that the City

of Augusta and Judge James should be considered joint employers.
To determine

a

single

two

state or local

the

classified

as

separate under

v.

City

aggregated.

Lyles

1344

(11th

Cir.

Court

entities

employer,

entities

1332,

if

starts

of

1999) .

overcome this presumption.

with

the

state

Riviera
However,

First,

should be

presumption

law

Beach,
there

treated as

that

should not
Fla.,

are

two

166

be

F.3d

ways

to

the plaintiff proves that the

purpose in maintaining separate entities is to elude Title VII.

Second,

the presumption of separateness is clearly outweighed by

factors indicating the two entities are so closely related that
they should be counted together.

method,

Under the second

the court considers factors such as the ability to hire,

transfer,
direct

Id. at 1345.

discipline,

or

work assignments;

discharge;
and the

train.

Id.

factual

question and may not

dismiss.

Whether either of

Id.

Thus,

the

obligation

these

be
Court

create

work

will

or

to pay or duty to

standards

resolved

schedules

has

been met

is a

through a motion to

allow

Rice's

proposed

amendments

to her Title VII

complaints

against Judge

James

in

his official capacity and against the City of Augusta.

Fourth,
James

in

Rice proposes to add a § 1983

his

individual

capacity

for

claim against Judge

unlawful

discrimination.

Judge James believes this claim is barred by qualified immunity,
and therefore the amendment is futile.

When a plaintiff brings

a complaint against a local government officer in his individual

capacity,

the

immunity.
However,

officer

Harlow
if

established,

the

v.

may

raise

a

Fitzgerald,

457

constitutional

qualified

defense
U.S.

right

immunity does

based

on

qualified

800,

817

(1982).

violated

was

clearly

not

apply.

Id.

Clearly

established laws are those set by precedent of the United States

Supreme

Court,

the

Court.

Snider

v.

1328

(11th Cir.

Eleventh
Jefferson

2003).

Circuit,
State

and

Cmty.

the

Georgia

Coll.,

344

F.3d

813

Sherriff of
(11th Cir.

1325,

The case does not need to be directly on

point and only needs to give the defendant fair notice.
v.

Supreme

the Broward Sheriff's Office,

684

F.

Mitello

App'x 809,

2017).

Judge James contends that Rice has not alleged a violation
of
the

a clearly established right.
victim

of

intentional

racial

However,

Rice

claims

discrimination.

The

she was
Eleventh

Circuit has repeatedly held that the right to be free from race

discrimination

in

public

employment

is

clearly

established.

Boggle

v.

McClure,

Alexander v.
2000),
13 04

overruled

that

F.3d

Fulton County,

(11th Cir.

point

332

on

other

2003) .

Judge

1347,

Ga.,

1355

(11th

207 F.3d 1303,

grounds

by Manders

Cir.

1321

v.

2003);

(11th Cir.

Lee,

338

F.3d

Since the Court cannot conclude at this

James

is

protected

by

qualified

immunity,

Rice's claim may be amended.4
Rice

also

retaliation

wishes

against

to

Judge

allege

James

a

§

in

However,

a

his

unlike racial discrimination,

is

1983

not

clearly

Amendment.
Cir.

established

Jolivette v. Arrowood,

2006) .

The

Court

therefore

claim

of

unlawful

individual

capacity.

freedom from retaliation

right

under

the

18 0 F. App'x 883,
finds

Rice

cannot

Fourteenth
887

(11th

amend

her

complaint to add such a claim.

Finally, Rice wishes to add a § 1983 claim against the City
of Augusta.

Rice claims the City ignored its Equal Employment

Opportunity
where

(EEO)

police

policy.

officers

discriminatory conduct

Rice points to two other occasions

made

complaints

and argues

failing to address his behavior.
be

liable

for its

failure

to

that

about

the

Judge

City is

Under § 1983,

supervise

if

it

James's

liable

for

the City might

tacitly approved

the conduct or was deliberately indifferent and this led to the

plaintiff's injuries.

Cannon v. Taylor, 782 F.2d 947, 951 (11th

4 Likewise, Rice may include her hostile work environment claim.
v. Jones,

575 F.3d 1281,

1300 (11th Cir. 2009).

See

Bryant

Cir. 1986).

If Rice proves the City knew about the two previous

claims and those claims formed a flagrant,
violations,

it might be liable.

1325,

(11th Cir.

1335

2013) .

persistent pattern of

Goodman v.
Therefore,

Kimbrough,

Rice

may

718 F.3d

include her

proposed § 1983 claim against the City of Augusta.

Therefore,

upon consideration,

File an Amended Complaint

(doc.

Rice's

18-1)

Motion

for Leave

is hereby GRANTED.

to

Rice

shall file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days hereof

in

conformity

with

this

order.

The

amended

complaint

supersede the original complaint in its entirety.
Defendant's

motion

and motion for a

MOOT.

This

does

to

more

dismiss
definite

not

the

original

statement

Accordingly,

complaint

(doc.

prejudice Defendant's

5)

will

(doc.

5)

are DENIED AS

ability to

file

a

motion to dismiss the amended complaint if appropriate.

ORDER
October,

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia

this

^

day

of

2017.

:hief JUDGE

UNITED SPATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA