Torres v. Hudspeth
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL of case without prejudice by Senior District Judge James A. Parker. (bap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 17cv347 JAP/WPL
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint, Doc. 8, filed May 3, 2017). For the reasons stated below, the Court will DISMISS
this case without prejudice.
Plaintiff asserted a claim of racial discrimination against his former employer, Defendant
Hudspeth. See Amended Complaint at 3. Plaintiff alleged that after he broke up a fight between
two other employees of Defendant after hours and off-site, Defendant’s superintendent, a Native
American, terminated Plaintiff’s employment, but did not terminate the employment of the two
other employees involved in the fight, both of whom are Native Americans. Plaintiff stated he
“sought remediation through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 12/12/16.”
Amended Complaint at 5.
After explaining that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite
to suit under Title VII, that a plaintiff’s claim in federal court is generally limited by the scope of
the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of
discrimination submitted to the EEOC, and that a plaintiff normally may not bring a Title VII
action based upon claims that were not part of a timely-filed EEOC charge for which the plaintiff
has received a right-to-sue letter, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint because
there were no allegations in the original Complaint or the Amended Complaint which describe the
claims in Plaintiff’s EEOC charge or the scope of the administrative investigation that followed
Plaintiff’s EEOC charge. See Doc. 7, filed April 11, 2017. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to
file a second amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint consists of one page of vague factual allegations,
see Doc. 8 at 7, and numerous copies of other documents related to the arrests following the
altercation and to the termination of his employment. The Second Amended Complaint contains
two documents related to Plaintiff’s charge to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
The first is a “Dismissal and Notice of Rights,” dated December 28, 2016, which states the
EEOC is closing its file on this charge because the EEOC was unable to conclude that the
information obtained established violations of the relevant statutes.
Doc. 8 at 49.
“Dismissal and Notice of Rights” does not describe Plaintiff’s claims in his EEOC charge or the
scope of the administrative investigation that followed Plaintiff’s EEOC charge.
The second is a “Charge of Discrimination” for the New Mexico Dep’t of Workforce
Solutions, Human Rights Bureau and EEOC, which indicates it was “presented to EEOC.” Doc.
8 at 57. The Charge states that Plaintiff “believe[s] I have been discriminated against because of
my race (White), and national origin (Hispanic).” Doc. 8 at 57. However, the Charge of
Discrimination is signed by Plaintiff and dated “5/25/17,” which is almost five months after the
EEOC issued its “Dismissal and Notice of Rights.”
As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff bears the burden of
alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir.
2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists
absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”). Plaintiff has not alleged
sufficient facts to support jurisdiction because neither of the two EEOC documents attached to his
Second Amended Complaint describe the claims in Plaintiff’s 2016 EEOC charge or the scope of
the administrative investigation that followed Plaintiff’s 2016 EEOC charge.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?