Oliver B. Mitchell v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Docket 54

7/25/2019 Oliver B. Mitchell v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Docket 54

1/11

1

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLI VER B. MI TCHELL, I I I ,

Pl ai nt i f f ,v.

SECRETARY, UNI TED STATESDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAI RS,

Def endant s.

))))))))))

No. CV 13- 6030- ODW ( CW)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Pl ai nt i f f Ol i ver B. Mi t chel l , I I I , i s appear i ng pro se and

seeki ng t o pr oceed i n f or ma pauper i s, on a ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt

agai nst gover nment al def endant s. On Mar ch 12, 2014, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed

a Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt ( FAC) al l egi ng var i ous di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai ms agai nst t he Secr et ar y of t he Depar t ment of Vet er ans Af f ai r s

and two empl oyees of t he VA medi cal cent er i n West Los Angel es.

[ Docket no. 30. ] On November 18, 2014, t he Cour t di smi ssed t he Fi r st

Amended Compl ai nt wi t h l eave t o amend, f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m.[ Docket no. 36. ]

On December 22, 2014, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Second Amended Compl ai nt

( SAC) , assert i ng a cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l

Ri ght s Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2000e et seq. , agai nst

Case 2:13-cv-06030-ODW-CW Document 54 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:432


2/11

2

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

27

28

t he Secr et ar y of t he Uni t ed St at es Depar t ment of Vet er ans Af f ai r s. 1

[ Docket no. 40. ] On March 23, 2015, Def endant Rober t A. McDonal d

f i l ed a Mot i on t o Di smi ss t he SAC f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m, or i n

t he al t er nat i ve, f or a mor e def i ni t e st at ement . [ Docket no. 47. ]

LEGAL STANDARD

Compl ai nt s such as Pl ai nt i f f s ar e subj ect t o t he cour t s sua

spont e r evi ew under pr ovi si ons of t he Pr i son Li t i gat i on Ref or m Act of

1995 ( PLRA) , Pub. L. No. 104- 134, 110 St at . 1321 ( 1996) . See 28

U. S. C. 1915A( a) . The cour t shal l di smi ss such a compl ai nt , at any

t i me, i f t he cour t f i nds t hat i t ( 1) i s f r i vol ous or mal i ci ous, ( 2)

f ai l s t o st at e a cl ai m on whi ch r el i ef may be gr ant ed, or ( 3) seeks

monet ar y r el i ef f r om a def endant i mmune f r om such r el i ef . See 28

U. S. C. 1915( e) ( 2) ( B) ( i n f or ma pauper i s compl ai nt s) ; Lopez v.

Smi t h, 203 F. 3d 1122, 1126- 27 and n. 7 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( en banc) .

A cl ai m i s f r i vol ous when i t i s wi t hout basi s i n l aw or

f act, and mal i ci ous when i t i s f i l ed wi t h t he i nt ent i on or desi r e

t o har m anot her . Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F. 3d. 1106, 1109 ( 9t h Ci r .

2013) ( quot i ng Andr ews v. Ki ng, 398 F. 3d 1113, 1121 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) ) .

Fai l ur e t o st ate a cl ai m has t he same meani ng on PLRA r evi ew t hat

i t has i n r evi ew of a mot i on t o di smi ss under Fed. R. Ci v. P.

12( b) ( 6) . I d. A Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss f or f ai l ur e t o

stat e a cl ai m t ests t he l egal suf f i ci ency of a cl ai m.

Conservat i on For ce v. Sal azar , 646 F. 3d 1240, 1242 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011)

( quot i ng Navar r o v. Bl ock, 250 F. 3d 729, 732 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ) .

Di smi ssal f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m may be based on l ack of a

1 On J anuar y 6, 2015, t he Cour t subst i t ut ed Rober t A. McDonal d,t he cur r ent Secr et ar y of Vet er ans Af f ai r s, as a Def endant i n pl ace off or mer Secr et ar y Er i k K. Shi nseki . [ Docket no. 41; see Fed. R. Ci v.P. 25( d) . ]



3/11

3

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

27

28

cogni zabl e l egal t heor y or t he absence of suf f i ci ent f act s al l eged

under a cogni zabl e l egal t heor y. Conservat i on For ce, 646 F. 3d at

1242 ( quot i ng Bal i st r er i v. Paci f i ca Pol i ce Dep t , 901 F. 2d 696, 699

( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ) . A compl ai nt may al so be di smi ssed f or f ai l ur e t o

st at e a cl ai m i f i t di scl oses a f act or compl et e def ense t hat wi l l

necessar i l y def eat t he cl ai m. Frankl i n v. Mur phy, 745 F. 2d 1221,

1228- 29 ( 9t h Ci r . 1984) ( ci t i ng 2A Moor e s Feder al Pr act i ce 12. 08) .

To survi ve r evi ew f or f ai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m, a compl ai nt must

al l ege f act s suf f i ci ent t o s tat e a f aci al l y pl aus i bl e cl ai m t o

r el i ef . Conser vat i on For ce, 646 F. 3d at 1242 ( quot i ng Shr oyer v.

New Ci ngul ar Wi r el ess Ser vs. , I nc. , 622 F. 3d 1035, 1041 ( 9t h Ci r .

2010) ) . A compl ai nt i s pr oper l y di smi ssed under Rul e 12( b) ( 6)

unl ess i t cont ai ns enough f acts t o st at e a cl ai m t o r el i ef t hat i s

pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. . . . Wel l - pl eaded f actual al l egat i ons ar e

t aken as t r ue, but concl usory st at ement s or bar e asser t i ons are

di scount ed. Reci nt o v. U. S. Dept . of Vet er ans Af f ai r s, 706 F. 3d

1171, 1177 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ( ci t i ng Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662,

681, 697, 129 S. Ct . 1937 ( 2009) ; ot her ci t at i ons and i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I f a compl ai nt f ai l s t hi s r evi ew, a cour t may di smi ss i t wi t h or

wi t hout l eave t o amend. Lopez, 203 F. 3d at 1126- 30. Leave t o amend

shoul d be gr ant ed i f i t appear s t hat def ect s can be cor r ect ed,

especi al l y i f a pl ai nt i f f i s appear i ng pr o se. I d. at 1130- 31. I f ,

af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, i t i s cl ear t hat a compl ai nt cannot be

cur ed by amendment , t he court may di smi ss wi t hout l eave t o amend.

See Cat o v. Uni t ed St at es, 70 F. 3d 1103, 1107- 11 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) .

/ /

/ /



4/11

4

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

27

28

DISCUSSION

1. The SAC Fails to Comply With the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure

The pl eadi ng st andar d of Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 8(a) ( 2)

r equi r es a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m showi ng t hat t he

pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef . Ashcrof t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662,

677- 78 ( 2009) . Each al l egat i on must be si mpl e, conci se, and

di r ect . Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8( d) ( 1) . To compl y wi t h Rul e 8, a

pl ai nt i f f shoul d set f or t h who i s bei ng sued, f or what r el i ef , and

on what t heor y, wi t h enough det ai l t o gui de di scover y. McHenr y v.

Renne, 84 F. 3d 1172, 1177 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) . Concl usory al l egat i ons

ar e i nsuf f i ci ent . See I qbal , 556 U. S. at 678 ( Rul e 8 demands mor e

t han an unadorned, t he- def endant - unl awf ul l y- harmed- me accusat i on; a

pl eadi ng t hat of f er s l abel s and concl usi ons or a f or mul ai c

r eci t at i on of t he el ement s of a cause of act i on wi l l not do. )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . A compl ai nt

vi ol at es Rul e 8 i f a def endant woul d have di f f i cul t y under st andi ng

and r espondi ng t o t he compl ai nt . Caf asso, U. S. ex r el . v. Gener al

Dynami cs C4 Syst ems, I nc. , 637 F. 3d 1047, 1059 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) .

Pl ai nt i f f s SAC does not cont ai n a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of

t he cl ai m showi ng t hat [ pl ai nt i f f ] i s ent i t l ed t o rel i ef . Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 8( a) ( 2) . I nst ead, t he SAC cont ai ns over 120 f act ual

al l egat i ons ar r anged i n a l engt hy nar r at i ve of i nci dent s t hat

occur r ed whi l e Pl ai nt i f f was an empl oyee f or t he Medi cal Car e Gr oupat t he VA Medi cal Cent er i n Los Angel es, an agency of t he Depar t ment

of Vet er ans Af f ai r s. ( SAC 10118. ) Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons f ai l

t o i dent i f y each i ndi vi dual cl ai m and t he i nci dent s gi vi ng r i se t o

each cl ai m. The SAC l umps al l of Pl ai nt i f f s f act ual al l egat i ons



5/11

5

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

27

28

t oget her i n chr onol ogi cal or der r egar dl ess of t hei r r el at i on t o a

par t i cul ar cl ai m. Pl ai nt i f f must l i st hi s f act ual al l egat i ons

accor di ng t o t he cl ai ms that he i s asser t i ng. The Cour t i s not

r equi r ed t o sor t t hr ough Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons i n sear ch of a

vi abl e cl ai m. I ndependent Towers of Wash. V. Wash. , 350 F. 3d 925,

929 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ; see Gr eenwood v. Fed. Avi at i on Admi n. , 28 F. 3d

971, 977 ( 9t h Ci r . 1994) . Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ur e t o pl ai nl y and

succi nct l y pr ovi de t he def endant wi t h f ai r not i ce of t he bases f or

hi s al l egat i ons vi ol at es Rul e 8. See Caf asso, 637 F. 3d at 1059; see

al so Amer i can Ass n of Nat ur opat hi c Physi ci ans v. Hayhur st , 227 F. 3d

1104, 110708 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( [ A] pr o se l i t i gant i s not excused

f r om knowi ng t he most basi c pl eadi ng r equi r ement s. ) . 2

2 The SAC al so f ai l s t o compl y wi t h Feder al Rul e of Ci vi lProcedur e 10. A par t y must st at e i t s cl ai ms or def enses i n number edpar agr aphs, each l i mi t ed as f ar as pr act i cabl e t o a si ngl e set ofci r cumst ances. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 10( b) . [ E] ach cl ai m f ounded on asepar at e t r ansact i on or occur r ence . . . must be st at ed i n a separ at ecount . Fed. R. Ci v. P. 10( b) . Separ at e count s wi l l be r equi r ed i f

necessary t o enabl e t he def endant t o f r ame a r esponsi ve pl eadi ng ort o enabl e t he cour t and t he ot her par t i es t o under st and t he cl ai ms. Baut i st a v. Los Angel es Count y, 216 F. 3d 837, 840 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000)( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Thus, t he f unct i on of t he compl ai nt i s not t ol i st ever y s i ngl e f act r el at i ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms, but r at her t ogi ve t he Def endant s f ai r not i ce of each cl ai m and t he gr ounds uponwhi ch i t r est s.

Her e, Pl ai nt i f f has not separ at el y set f or t h hi s var i ous cl ai msi ncl udi ng t he suppor t i ng f act s f or each cl ai mas separ at e count s, soas t o the al l ow t he Cour t and Def endant t o underst and t he scope andnat ure of Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons. I f Pl ai nt i f f wi shes t o f i l e an

amended compl ai nt , he shal l set f or t h each of t hese cl ai ms as asepar at e count by cl ear l y number i ng and di st i ngui shi ng f r om oneanot her ever y ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m, i ncl udi ng t he under l yi ng f act ualal l egat i ons f or each cl ai m. Any cl ai m t hat i s not cl ear l y number edor separ at ed f r om al l ot her cl ai ms and accompani ed wi t h t he al l egedf act s suppor t i ng t hat cl ai m wi l l not be addr essed as a separ at e cl ai mf or r el i ef .



6/11

6

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

27

28

2. The SAC Fails to State a Title VII Claim

Const r ui ng t he SAC l i ber al l y, i t appear s t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s

at t empt i ng t o st at e a cl ai m f or di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on under

Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act . See 42 U. S. C. 2000e, et seq.

a. Exhaustion Requirement

As a t hr eshol d mat t er , Ti t l e VI I has exhaust i on r equi r ement s

t hat must be met pr i or t o f i l i ng a cour t act i on. 42 U. S. C. 2000e-

16( c) . A f eder al empl oyee must f i r st i ni t i at e cont act wi t h an EEO

counsel or wi t hi n 45 days of t he dat e of t he al l eged di scr i mi nat i on or

adver se act i on. See 29 C. F. R. 1614. 105( a) ( 1) ; Sommat i no v. Uni t ed

St at es, 255 F. 3d 704, 707708 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) . I f t he mat t er i s not

r esol ved, t he empl oyee may submi t a f or mal admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt .

See 29 C. F. R. 1614. 106.

Pl ai nt i f f has at t ached t o hi s compl ai nt an exhi bi t t hat

r epr esent s t he Fi nal Agency Deci si on of t he VA r egar di ng cl ai ms f or

di scri mi nat i on f or whi ch Pl ai nt i f f i ni t i at ed cont act wi t h an EEO

counsel or i n Mar ch 2013, and f or whi ch Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a f or mal

admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt on Apr i l 25, 2013. ( See FAC 1724. )

However , i t appears t hat t he cl ai ms accept ed by t he agency were based

sol el y on al l egat i ons t hat occur r ed on or af t er Pl ai nt i f f s

r esi gnat i on i n Mar ch 2011, wher eas t he SAC consi st s of al l egat i ons

t hat dat e back t o Febr uar y 2008. Al l egat i ons of di scr i mi nat i on not

i ncl uded i n t he pl ai nt i f f s admi ni st r at i ve char ge may not be

consi der ed by a f eder al cour t unl ess t he new cl ai ms are l i ke orr easonabl y rel at ed t o t he al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he EEOC char ge.

B. K. B. v. Maui Pol i ce Dep t , 276 F. 3d 1091, 1100 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002)



7/11

7

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

27

28

( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . The Cour t i s unabl e t o di scer n f r om

t he f ace of t he compl ai nt or t hi s exhi bi t whet her Pl ai nt i f f has

exhaust ed hi s admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es f or al l of t he cl ai ms. Thus,

Pl ai nt i f f shoul d be gi ven l eave t o amend t o ei t her cur e t hi s

def i ci ency, or expl ai n how any new cl ai ms are l i ke or r easonabl y

r el at ed t o t he al l egat i ons pr evi ousl y submi t t ed i n Pl ai nt i f f s

f or mal admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt .

b. Disparate Treatment

Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat he was di scr i mi nat ed agai nst based on hi s

r ace ( Af r i can Amer i can) , col or ( Bl ack) , sex ( mal e) , and sexual

or i ent at i on. ( SAC 1, 9. ) Ti t l e VI I of t he Ci vi l Ri ght s Act

pr ovi des t hat al l per sonnel act i ons af f ect i ng f eder al empl oyees shal l

be made f r ee f r om any di scr i mi nat i on based on r ace, col or , r el i gi on,

sex, or nat i onal or i gi n. 3 42 U. S. C. 2000e16. To est abl i sh a

prima facie case of di spar at e t r eat ment under Ti t l e VI I Pl ai nt i f f

must show t hat : ( 1) he i s a member of a pr otected cl ass; ( 2) he was

qual i f i ed f or hi s posi t i on; ( 3) he exper i enced an adver se empl oyment

act i on; and ( 4) si mi l ar l y si t uat ed i ndi vi dual s out si de hi s pr ot ected

cl ass wer e t r eat ed mor e f avor abl y, or ot her ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng

t he adver se empl oyment act i on gi ve r i se t o an i nf er ence of

di scr i mi nat i on. Pet er son v. Hewl et t Packar d Co. , 358 F. 3d 599, 603

( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Raad v. Fai r banks Nor t h St ar Bor ough School

3 Di scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s of sexual or i ent at i on al one i s

not act i onabl e under Ti t l e VI I . See Rene v. MGM Gr and Hot el I nc. ,305 F. 3d 1061, 1068 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) ( We woul d hol d t hat anempl oyee s sexual or i ent at i on i s i r r el evant f or pur poses of Ti t l eVI I . I t nei t her pr ovi des nor pr ecl udes a cause of act i on f or sexualhar assment . ) . However , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat same- sexsexual har assment mot i vat ed by a gener al host i l i t y t owar d a gender ,and gender st er eot ypi ng, i s act i onabl e. See i d. at 1068; Oncal e v.Sundowner Of f shor e Ser vs. , I nc. , 523 U. S. 75, 77 ( 1988) .



8/11

8

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

27

28

Di st . , 323 F. 3d 1185, 119596 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng McDonnel l

Dougl as Cor p. v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792 ( 1973) ) .

Ti t l e VI I does not prohi bi t al l unf ai r t r eatment i n t he

wor kpl ace; r at her i t i s di r ect ed onl y at di scr i mi nat i on because of

member shi p i n a pr otect ed cl ass. 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 2( a) ( 1) ; Oncal e

v. Sundowner Of f shor e Ser vs. , I nc. , 523 U. S. 75, 80 ( 1998) . Thus, an

essent i al el ement of ever y Ti t l e VI I cl ai m i s a causal r el at i onshi p,

however pr oved, bet ween pr otect ed st atus and t he chal l enged

empl oyment act i on. See Oncal e, 523 U. S. at 8081. The SAC

i dent i f i es Pl ai nt i f f s race/ col or and gender , however i n i t s cur r ent

pl eadi ng f or m, i t does not appear t hat Pl ai nt i f f pr ovi des suf f i ci ent

f act s t o est abl i sh t hat he was di scr i mi nat ed agai nst because of hi s

member shi p i n t hese pr ot ect ed cl asses. Because Pl ai nt i f f may cur e

t hi s pl eadi ng def i ci ency by al l egi ng addi t i onal f act s, t he cour t

shoul d gr ant Pl ai nt i f f l eave t o amend hi s Ti t l e VI I cl ai m. 4 However ,

4 Pl ai nt i f f al so appear s t o al l ege a const r uct i ve di schar gecl ai m based on har assment t hat he exper i enced f r om Febr uar y 2008 t o

when he was f orced t o r esi gn hi s posi t i on on March 15, 2011. ( SAC 1. ) To set f or t h aprima facie case of Ti t l e VI I di scr i mi nat i onunder a const r uct i ve di schar ge t heor y, Pl ai nt i f f must pr ove, i n l i ghtof t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, t hat a r easonabl e per son i nPl ai nt i f f s posi t i on woul d have f el t he had no choi ce but t o qui t duet o t he i nt ol er abl e and di scr i mi nat or y wor ki ng condi t i ons. Wat sonv. Nat i onwi de I ns. Co. , 823 F. 2d 360, 361 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) ( quot i ngSat t er whi t e v. Smi t h, 744 F. 2d 1380, 1381 ( 9t h Ci r . 1984) ) . Thest andar d i s an obj ect i ve one whi ch f ocuses on a reasonabl e per son sr eact i on t o t he wor ki ng condi t i ons and not t he subj ect i ve i nt ent oft he empl oyer . I d. To est abl i sh t hat he was const r uct i vel y

di schar ged, a pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e the pr esence of aggr avat i ng f act or s, such as a cont i nuous pat t er n ofdi scr i mi nat or y t r eat ment . I d. ( emphasi s added i n or i gi nal )( quot i ng Sat t er whi t e, 744 F. 2d at 1382) . The pl ai nt i f f s wor ki ngcondi t i ons must be suf f i ci ent l y ext r aor di nar y or egr egi ous t o amountt o a const r uct i ve di schar ge. See Br ooks v. Ci t y of San Mat eo, 229F. 3d 917, 930 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( ci t i ng Tur ner v. Anheuser - Busch, I nc. ,7 Cal . 4t h 1238, 1246 ( 1994) ) .



9/11

9

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

27

28

Pl ai nt i f f i s r emi nded t o separ at el y set f or t h each cl ai m i ncl udi ng

t he f act s t o suppor t each cl ai m of di scr i mi nat i on on t he basi s of a

pr ot ect ed cl ass as separ at e count s so as t o t he al l ow t he Cour t and

Def endant t o under st and t he scope and nat ur e of Pl ai nt i f f s

al l egat i ons.

c. Retaliation

Pl ai nt i f f al so al l eges repr i sal and r et al i at i on f or pr i or EEO

act i vi t y. ( SAC 9. ) Ti t l e VI I makes i t unl awf ul t o di scri mi nat e

agai nst an empl oyee who f i l es a compl ai nt . I n or der t o est abl i sh a

prima facie case of r et al i at i on under Ti t l e VI I , a pl ai nt i f f must

demonst r at e ( a) t hat [ he] engaged i n pr ot ect ed act i vi t y; ( b) t hat

[ he] suf f er ed a mat er i al l y adver se act i on t hat woul d det er a

r easonabl e empl oyee f r om maki ng a charge of empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on; and ( 3) t hat t her e i s a causal connect i on bet ween

t he pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and t he adver se act i on. Por t er v. Cal i f or ni a

Dept . of Cor r ect i ons, 419 F. 3d 885, 894 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) . I f t he

pl ai nt i f f pr ovi des suf f i ci ent evi dence t o show aprima facie case of

r et al i at i on, t he bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he [ def endant ] t o ar t i cul at e

a l egi t i mat e, non- r et al i at or y r eason f or [ i t s] acti ons. I d. at 894.

I f t he def endant set s f or t h such a r eason, pl ai nt i f f bear s t he

ul t i mat e bur den of submi t t i ng evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat t he

[ def endant s] pr of f er ed r eason i s mer el y a pr et ext f or a r et al i at or y

mot i ve. I d.

Because the SAC f ai l s t o al l ege f act s t hat woul d suppor t acausal connect i on bet ween Pl ai nt i f f s pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and t he

adver se empl oyment act i on, t he r et al i at i on cl ai m shoul d be di smi ssed

wi t h l eave t o amend.

/ /



10/11

10

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

27

28

ORDERS

I t i s t her ef or e ORDERED as f ol l ows:

1. The SAC i s di smi ssed wi t h l eave t o amend. 5

2. Wi t hi n t hi r t y ( 30) days of t he f i l i ng of t hi s Memor andum

and Or der , Pl ai nt i f f may f i l e a Thi r d Amended Compl ai nt whi ch

cor r ect s t he def ect s di scussed above and compl i es wi t h t hese

r equi r ement s:

( a) The Thi r d Amended Compl ai nt must bear t he present case number

CV 13- 6030- ODW ( CW) .

( b) I t must be compl et e i n i t sel f and may not i ncor por at e by

r ef er ence any par t of any pr i or compl ai nt .

( c) Pl ai nt i f f may not use et al . i n t he capt i on, but must cl ear l y

name each def endant agai nst whom a cl ai m i s st at ed i n t he Thi r d

Amended Compl ai nt . ( The cl erk uses t he capt i on t o make sur e t hat

def endant s ar e cor r ect l y l i st ed on t he docket . )

( d) Pl ai nt i f f may not add new par t i es wi t hout t he cour t s

per mi ssi on.

3. I f Pl ai nt i f f f i l es an amended compl ai nt , t he cour t wi l l

i ssue f ur t her or der s as appr opr i at e; i f not , t he magi st r at e j udge

wi l l r ecommend t hat t hi s act i on be di smi ssed, wi t hout pr ej udi ce, f or

f ai l ur e t o pr osecut e or t o compl y wi t h cour t or der s, as wel l as f or

t he reasons s t at ed above.

4. The cl er k shal l serve t hi s Memor andum and Or der on

Pl ai nt i f f .

5 Gi ven t he Cour t s sua spont e di smi ssal of Pl ai nt i f f s SAC,Def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss, or f or a mor e def i ni t e st at ement , i sdeni ed as moot .



11/11

11

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

27

28

I T I S SO ORDERED.

Dat ed: November 24, 2015

______________________________CARLA M. WOEHRLE

Uni t ed St at es Magi st r at e J udge


Oliver B. Mitchell v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Docket 54

Documents

Transcript of Oliver B. Mitchell v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Docket 54