Martin v. Whittlesea

PEARLITHA MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. WHITTLESEA, Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cv-02438-JAD-GWF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

July 29, 2019

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1), filed on December 28, 2018.

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed this instant action and attached a financial affidavit to her application and complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Reviewing Plaintiff's financial affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pre-pay the filing fee. As a result, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court is granted.

II. Screening the Complaint

Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must additionally screen a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Specifically, federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant/third party plaintiff who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted "if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims that would entitle him to relief." Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it is premised on a nonexistent legal interest or delusional factual scenario. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Moreover, "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Court shall liberally construe a complaint by a pro se litigant. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2007). This is especially important for civil rights complaints. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, a liberal construction may not be used to supply an essential element of the claim absent from the complaint. Brum v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 12 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands "more than labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 1949. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from plausible to conceivable, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

III. Instant Complaint

Plaintiff's one-page complaint consists of the single factual allegation that she was harassed at her place of employment. Plaintiff states "Federal" in her complaint. This is not anadequate allegation of jurisdiction and venue. She does not allege the legal theory under which she is pursuing her claim and she does not provide any factual basis for her claim other than a single sentence. This is simply inadequate and the Court cannot conduct a screening of Plaintiff's complaint.

a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving their power to hear cases from specific congressional grants of jurisdiction. United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Limited jurisdiction means that federal courts (1) possess only that power authorized by the Constitution or a specific federal statute and (2) do not have jurisdiction over a matter simply because the alleged wrong occurred in the same city, county, or state in which the court sits. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Generally, subject matter jurisdiction may derive from diversity of the parties, which are "civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 ... and is between citizens of different States," or from claims involving a federal question, which are "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a "claim for relief must contain ... a short plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The burden of proving jurisdiction rests on the party asserting jurisdiction. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936). Plaintiff does not state the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction in her complaint nor does the complaint contain allegations demonstrating that the Court has jurisdiction.

b. Failure to State a Claim

i. Harassment/Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

It appears that Plaintiff seeks to pursue a claim of workplace harassment. Her complaint does not sufficiently allege the legal theory under which she is pursuing her claim, nor does she provide an adequate factual basis for her claim. Plaintiff may be attempting to set forth a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), which is a federal law that makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual withrespect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2.

As an initial matter and to the extent that Plaintiff intends to set forth a claim for harassment under Title VII, a plaintiff must first exhaust administrative remedies in order to bring a Title VII claim in district court. Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir.2001) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c)). Exhaustion of administrative remedies under Title VII requires that the complainant file a timely charge with the EEOC, thereby allowing the agency time to investigate the charge. Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1104 (9th Cir. 2002); See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Plaintiff failed to allege that she has exhausted her administrative remedies.

Discrimination can take the form of negative employment action, or it may arise when an employer harbors a hostile or abusive work environment. U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Wedco, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 3d 993, 1002 (D. Nev. 2014). "Title VII is violated when "the workplace is permeated with 'discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult' that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment.'" Id. (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). To prevail on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, the plaintiff must show: "(1) that he was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a racial or sexual nature; (2) that the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create an abusive work environment." Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 640 (9th Cir.2003). A plaintiff must also demonstrate that the employer is liable for the harassment. Wedco, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 1002.

Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable claim. She fails to allege any legal theory and fails to allege that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claim. She merely alleges that she was harassed. To the extent Plaintiff intended to file a Title VII harassment claim, she failed to allege the harassment was based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin or that her employer was liable for such harassment. The Court, therefore, will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff is advised that she must provide the court with a proper factual and legal basis for her...