Sheridan v. Department of Corrections of Washington et al

Filing 21

ORDER granting 15 Defendant Mendoza's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 defendants other than Mendoza. [Dkt. #14]. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not obtain (and v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ELDON VAIL individually and in his official capacity acting under the color of state law; and ELEANOR D. VERNELL individually and in her official capacity acting under the color of state law, Defendants. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants Mendoza and the State of Washington Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Dkt. # 15]. The Court's prior Order dismissed most of Plaintiff's original claims against all JENNY SHERIDAN, a married woman, Plaintiff, NO. C10-5459RBL ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. #15] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA The Honorable RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

should not be granted) leave to amend her complaint. They argue that claims addressed in the Court's prior Order have been re-pleaded, and should be dismissed. Defendants also argue that plaintiff's new "public policy against bullying" claim is deficient as a matter of law, and permitting Plaintiff to amend her complaint to include it would be futile. Plaintiff's Response [Dkt. #16] addresses only her "public policy against bullying" claim. That claim is based on Plaintiff's argument that RCW 28A.300.285 - "Harrassment, intimidation, and bullying prevention policies and procedures" - reflects an actionable public policy against bullying supporting her workplace "bullying" claim against Defendants. The cited statute relates only to schools, and to the protection of students. It does not expressly or impliedly create a private cause of action for DOC employees to sue for

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 workplace bullying. See Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 920, 784 P.2d 1258 (1990)
(outlining test for implying statutory private right of action). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was not properly amended, and it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Dkt. #11] is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE this 3rd day of March 2011.

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE