Olson v. Arnold-Williams et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; granting 10 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

12
13

ORDER

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. 12-cv-5430-RBL

KENT A. OLSON,

[Dkts. #6, 10]

v.
ROBIN ARNOLD-WILLIAMS, Secretary,
Department of Social and Health Services, et
al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, asserting disability discrimination claims
under both state and federal law against the Department of Social and Health Services
(“DSHS”), and certain agency officials. (See Compl., Dkt. #1.) In response, Defendants moved
to dismiss, arguing that Title VII, cited by Plaintiff, does not protect against disability
discrimination on its face. Further, Plaintiff’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”), is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Bd. of Trustees
of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001); Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch.,
343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). And what’s more, neither the State nor its agencies are
“persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1998). Lastly, Defendants argue that the remaining state law claims are also barred from federal
court under the Eleventh Amendment. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.
89, 120 (1984).

28

Order - 1

1

Plaintiff did not respond. Rather, he simply filed an Amended Complaint. (See Am.

2

Compl, Dkt. #7). Defendants again moved to dismiss. (Defs’. Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. #10.)

3

Plaintiff has not responded.

4

Under Local Rule 7(b)(2), a failure to file papers in opposition to a motion “may be

5

considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Here, the Court considers

6

Plaintiff’s silence an admission that Defendants’ motion has merit. The motion is therefore

7

GRANTED for the reasons stated above, and the case dismissed with prejudice.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Dated this 24th day of July 2012.

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2