Dean et al v. King County Metropolitan (Metro) Transit System

Filing 21

ORDER granting Defendant King County's 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before by 7/28/2017, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
_______________________________________
)
JIMMIE T. DEAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
KING COUNTY METROPOLITAN
)
(METRO) TRANSIT SYSTEM, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Civil Case No. C16-1821RSL

ORDER GRANTING KING
COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the King County defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss

16

for Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted.” Dkt. # 13. Plaintiff alleges that he

17

was wrongfully terminated from his job with King County Metro even though he was

18

performing adequately. He infers that he must have been discriminated against “for some

19

unknowable reason” and postulates that his employer and/or supervisor resented having to rehire

20

him after he took a medical leave of absence. Dkt. # 4 at 3-4. Plaintiff’s complaint is titled

21

“Complaint for Wrongful Employment Termination Violation of Title VII and Employment

22

Discrimination.” Dkt. # 4 at 1.

23

The King County defendants argue that plaintiff is asserting only a Title VII claim and

24

that the claim fails as a matter of law because (1) plaintiff has not affirmatively plead that he

25

exhausted his administrative remedies and (2) the allegations do not give rise to a plausible

26

ORDER GRANTING KING COUNTY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

inference of liability.1 Defendants’ first argument is not well taken. Failure to exhaust is an
affirmative defense that defendant must assert and prove. Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr.,
481 F.3d 1106, 1107 (9th Cir. 2007). Although plaintiff has the ultimate burden of establishing
that he exhausted his administrative remedies (or that defendants waived or are otherwise
estopped from insisting on exhaustion), the exhaustion issue cannot be resolved in the context of
this motion to dismiss.
Nevertheless, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient in that they do not give rise to a
reasonable inference of liability and/or do not adequately apprise King County of the nature of
his claims and the grounds on which they are asserted. The question for the Court on a motion to
dismiss is whether the facts alleged in the complaint sufficiently state a “plausible” ground for
relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Plausibility requires pleading facts, as opposed to conclusory
allegations or the formulaic recitation of elements of a cause of action, and must
rise above the mere conceivability or possibility of unlawful conduct that entitles
the pleader to relief. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely
consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Nor is it enough that the complaint is
factually neutral; rather, it must be factually suggestive.
Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). As currently pled, plaintiff’s Title VII claim is fatally flawed. Plaintiff has not

20
alleged that he is a member of a protected class and has therefore failed to allege facts from which one
21
22
1

23
24
25
26

The County’s motion was noted for consideration on June 2, 2017. On May 30, 2017, plaintiff
filed a one-page response indicating that he is proceeding pro se, that motions to dismiss are disfavored,
and that he is working on an amended answer. Dkt. # 17. During the past three weeks, plaintiff
contacted chambers at least twice to reiterate that he intended to file a more complete response. The
stated dates for filing have come and gone, however, and no further response has been submitted.
ORDER GRANTING KING COUNTY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

could reasonably infer that he was discriminated against because of his race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
Whether a Title VII claim is the only cause of action asserted in this litigation is difficult to
discern, however. The title of the complaint uses the generic phrases “wrongful termination” and
“employment discrimination” in addition to the reference to Title VII. Plaintiff may be asserting a state
law claim for wrongful termination and/or a state or federal claim of disability discrimination/retaliation,
but it is not clear from the record. The Court finds that the King County defendants are entitled to a
more definite statement regarding the nature of the claim(s) against them and the facts on which the
claim(s) rest.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s claims against the King County defendants are hereby
DISMISSED. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to allege additional facts related to the
King County defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Whether plaintiff can assert a plausible claim
for relief against his employer will depend on whether he can allege facts from which one could
reasonably infer that King County could be liable under state or federal law. Plaintiff is hereby
ORDERED to file on or before July 28, 2017, an amended complaint which clearly and concisely

identifies the acts of which King County and/or King County Metro is accused (including
specific allegations regarding his employer’s motivation in terminating his employment) and
how those acts violated plaintiff’s legal rights. The key to filing an acceptable amended
complaint will be providing enough facts in support of the legal claims asserted that King
County (and the Court) can discern the nature and plausibility of plaintiff’s claims. The amended
complaint will completely replace the original and should be a self-contained statement of
plaintiff’s claims.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING KING COUNTY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND - 3

1

Defendants need not respond to the complaint filed on November 29, 2016. The Clerk of

2

Court is directed to place this Order Requiring More Definite Statement on the Court’s calendar

3

for consideration on Friday, July 28, 2017.

4
5

Dated this 30th day of June, 2017.

6

A

7

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING KING COUNTY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND - 4