Issa v. Department of Workforce Services
Amended ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS-This case is hereby dismissed. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 3/2/12. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case No. 2:11-cv-1067 CW-BCW
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
District Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Brooke C. Wells under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge
Wells concluded Plaintiff Yaslam Issa’s complaint failed to state a claim and therefore ordered
Plaintiff to amend the complaint by December 21, 2011. Judge Wells asked Plaintiff to address
specifically how this court has jurisdiction, to provide factual details, and to make the complaint
more legible so the court could discern the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations. Judge Wells warned
Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of the action. Plaintiff did
not file an amended complaint by the specified date. Accordingly, on December 27, 2011, Judge
Wells issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 based on failure to state a claim for relief. No objection has been filed, but Plaintiff did file
an amended complaint on December 29, 2011.
Plaintiff’s first complaint asserts the Department of Workforce Services (the “Department”)
discriminated against him because he is Muslim. The Department notified Plaintiff that it was
closing his case. Plaintiff alleges the Department closed it “for no good reason.” Complaint, ¶ 4
(Dkt. No. 3). Plaintiff requests that the Department be ordered to provide financial assistance until
Plaintiff finds employment.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint does appear more legible and he has simplified his assertions.
Plaintiff again asserts that the Department closed his financial assistance case, and he details the
significant financial distress this caused. Plaintiff also asserts that he applied for emergency
assistance, but was denied that as well despite the fact that he has children under the age of five.
Although it is clear that Plaintiff has made an effort to comply with Judge Wells’ order, the amended
complaint still lacks sufficient information to show that this court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
When a state agency denies benefits or closes a case, a person must first exhaust
administrative remedies. In other words, a person must file an appeal with the agency and receive
a ruling on that appeal before this court may have jurisdiction. There is no evidence in this case that
Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. Additionally, while denial of financial assistance
on discriminatory grounds can result in a legitimate claim for relief, Plaintiff has not asserted facts
to show he was denied benefits for this reason.
The court therefore concurs that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Accordingly, the court hereby APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation on that basis.1 This case is hereby dismissed.
Docket No. 8.
SO ORDERED this 2d day of March, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
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?