Robinson v. City of Hyattsville et al
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 25 Motion to Amend Complaint; Granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within Fourteen (14) days from date of this Order; defendant's shall file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint within Fourteen (14) days of its filing. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/2/2018. (c/m 8/2/2018 heps, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JOHN ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-17-1130
CITY OF HYATTSVILLE,
TRACEY NICHOLSON,
LESLEY RIDDLE and
MIKE SCHMIDL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
ORDER
Plaintiff John Robinson, who is self-represented, brought this action against his former
employer,
the City of Hyattsville,
Nicholson;
and two supervisors at the Hyattsville Department of Public Works.
alleges that these supervisors,
Maryland;
the Hyattsville
City Administrator,
Tracey
Robinson
Lesley Riddle and Mike Schmidl, engaged in a pattern of
harassment against him, which ultimately resulted in his termination.
Robinson has filed a
Motion to Amend his Complaint in order to assert three constitutional claims. ECF No. 25. Also
pending is Robinson's Motion to Extend Discovery. ECF No. 28.
BACKGROUND
In his original Complaint, Robinson alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on
the basis of race, color, sex, and age, as well as unlawful retaliation, in violati~n of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C.
SS
2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.
SS
621-634 (2012). He also alleged
violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Robinson
later filed an Amended Complaint, which appeared to assert only the Title VII and ADEA
claims.
Defendants Nicholson, Riddle, and Schmidl ("the Individual Defendants") filed a Motion
to Dismiss the claims asserted against them in the Amended Complaint on the basis that neither
Title VII nor the ADEA gives rise to claims against individual supervisors.
The Court granted
that motion and informed Robinson that if he wanted to assert any other claims, including the
constitutional
claims asserted in his original Complaint, he would have to file a Motion to
Amend the Complaint.
Robinson then filed the pending Motion to Amend, seeking to re-assert
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims from his original Complaint, arguing that his right
to due process of law was violated by his termination from public employment.
He also seeks to
assert a new claim for a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The
Defendants oppose the Motion, arguing that Robinson's proposed amendments are futile.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), "[a] party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it, or if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (t), whichever is earlier." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(l).
"In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15 dictates that "[t]he court should
freely give leave when justice so requires."
Id.
A proposed amendment, however, may be
"denied on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or
frivolous on its face." Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 510 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
II.
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims
Robinson argues that he never intended to abandon the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
claims that he asserted in his original Complaint.
Mot. to Amend at 1, ECF No. 25-1. He now
seeks to re-assert those claims in a Second Amended Complaint.
Although Robinson refers to
these claims as "due process" claims, because the Fifth Amendment due process clause has been
deemed to have an equal protection component, United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 774
(2013), the Court will liberally construe these pro se allegations as seeking to add both equal
protection and due process claims.
42 U.S.C.
S
1983 makes liable "(e]very person" who, under color of state law, deprives
an individual of constitutional rights.
42 U .S.C.
S
1983 (2012).
Such
S
1983 claims may be
asserted against public officials in their individual capacities only. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989).
Because courts should construe pleadings of self-
represented litigants liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court will
construe Robinson's
Motion as an attempt to bring his constitutional
Individual Defendants in their individual capacities under
S
claims against the
1983.
Here, an equal protection claim against the Individual Defendants would presumably be
based on the same allegations of race, color, age, and sex discrimination that underlie the Title
VII and ADEA claims that are already part of the case. The Court will grant leave to amend to
add such a claim. Because the Individual Defendants are state and local officials, only the
Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment, applies.
Where Robinson failed to comply
with Local Rule 103.6, which requires litigants to attach a copy of their proposed amended
pleading to any motion to amend, Robinson will be required to submit a Second Amended
Complaint that includes all operative allegations and claims.
3
As for due process, "[a] public employee who has been terminated may bring a claim
under 42 U.S.C.
S
1983 alleging deprivation
of either a property
interest in continued
employment, or a liberty interest in his good reputation and employability, or both, without due
process of law as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Rogosin v. Mayor and City Council of Bait., 197 F. Supp. 2d 345, 353 (D. Md. 2002).
A
property interest in public employment is created by state statute, local ordinance, or contract.
Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 344 (1976); Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S.
564, 576-77 (1972) ("Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution.
Rather
they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem
from an independent
source such as state law-rules
or understandings
benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.").
continued good name and employability
that secure certain
A liberty interest in one's
arises when a state employer "impose[s]
on [the
plaintiff] a stigma or other disability that foreclose[ s] his freedom to take advantage of other
employment opportunities."
Roth, 408 U.S. at 573.
"For '(w)here a person's good name,
reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice
and an opportunity to be heard are essential.'"
Id. (quoting Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400
U.S. 433,437 (1971)).
Robinson has alleged that he was a public employee, that he had an employment contract,
and that the Individual Defendants breached that contract.
These allegations are sufficient, at
this stage, to show that Robinson is asserting a protected property interest in his public
employment with the City of Hyattsville.
Complaint
to add a claim for violation
The Court will therefore also allow him to amend his
of his due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
4
As for Defendant City of Hyattsville, the Supreme Court, in Monell v. Department of
Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), concluded that local government
entities are considered "persons" for the purposes of
S
1983, but they may not be held liable
solely because they employ an individual who committed an unlawful act.
Id at 690-91.
Rather, local governments may be sued only if the alleged constitutional violation results from a
custom or policy of the local government. /d. While the pleadings of pro se litigants should be
interpreted liberally, Robinson has alleged no facts that would show that the discrimination and
retaliation he allegedly experienced were part of a custom or policy of the City of Hyattsville.
The Motion to Amend is therefore denied to the extent that it seeks to add a
S
1983 claim against
the City of Hyattsville.
III.
Free Speech Claim
Robinson further seeks to add a claim for a violation of his First Amendment right to
freedom of speech. Robinson has provided no allegations, in his Motion or in his earlier versions
of the Complaint, that support a claim that he was terminated for statements he made, whether
protected by the First Amendment or not. The Motion will therefore be denied to the extent that
it seeks to add a First Amendment claim.
IV.
Motion to Extend Discovery
Finally, Robinson requests to extend the deadline by which discovery must be completed.
Defendants do not oppose this Motion.
In light of Robinson's pro se status and the Court's
granting, in part, of his Motion to Amend, the Motion to Extend Discovery will be granted.
5
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Robinson's Motion to Amend the Complaint, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
process
claims, brought
Defendants Nicholson,
The Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due
pursuant
to 42 U.S.C.
S
1983, may proceed
Riddle, and Schmidl in their individual capacities.
against
The
Motion is denied in all other respects.
2. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Robinson shall FILE a Second Amended
Complaint, which will combine the factual allegations in the previous two versions of
the Complaint, including the page that was inadvertently excluded from the First
Amended Complaint.
The Second Amended Complaint will also list all claims that
remain, specifically: (l) a Title VII claim against the City of Hyattsville; (2) an
ADEA claim against the City of Hyattsville; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment equal
protection and due process claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
S 1983
against Defendants
Nicholson, Riddle, and Schmidl in their individual capacities. The Second Amended
Complaint must include all operative allegations and. claims and may not rely upon,
or cross-reference, prior versions of the Complaint.
3. Defendants shall FILE an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days
of its filing.
4. Robinson's Motion to Extend Discovery, ECF No. 28, is GRANTED.
The following
reports must be filed, or actions taken, by the listed date:
September 26, 2018
Completion of Discovery; submission of PostDiscovery Joint Status Report, see Part V
October 3,2018
Requests for admission
6
October 10,2018
Notice ofIntent to File a Pretrial Dispositive
Motion, see Case Management Order Part
II.A
Date: August 2, 2018
THEODORE D. CHUAN
United States District Judg
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?