Quiles v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 7 Amended Complaint by Chief Judge M. Christina Armijo. (vv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JAYLENE M. QUILES,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16cv1293 MCA/SCY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Amended Civil Rights
Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 7, filed February 28, 2017 (“Amended
Complaint”).

For the reasons stated below, the Court will DISMISS this case without

prejudice.
Plaintiff’s original Complaint asserted claims under

the Rehabilitation Act,

29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (“ADA”).
The only allegations in the original Complaint are:
Discrimination/I have a disability and was terminated. The USDA, Steve
Romero, Thomas J. Vilsak Secretary of Agriculture
....
Discrimination on my disability and background
....
Steve Romero terminated me because of my disability + background. . . . He fired
me on leave of bereavement because of my disability bipolar + PTSD. Other
employees had actions but mine was dismissed. I have text messages and my
termination notice.
Complaint at 2-3.
The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because
Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. See
Doc. 6. The Court explained that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional

prerequisite to instituting an action in federal court under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
The Court notified Plaintiff that she has the burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction and
that she “has not alleged any facts showing that she has exhausted her administrative remedies,
including the date of termination of her employment, the dates and description of any steps she
took, if any, to exhaust her administrative remedies, and the scope of the allegations raised in her
EEOC charge(s).”

Doc. 6 at 4-5.

The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint.
Despite the Court’s notice to Plaintiff, her Amended Complaint does not allege any facts
showing that she has exhausted her administrative remedies, including the date of termination of
her employment, the dates and description of any steps she took, if any, to exhaust her
administrative remedies, and the scope of the allegations raised in her EEOC charge(s).
The Court will dismiss this case without prejudice because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
does not allege sufficient facts to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th
Cir.2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court,
having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition
on the merits of the underlying claims.”).
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

________________________________________
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2