Bounchanh v. WA State Health Care Authority

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 16, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-05171
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 KANNHA BOUNCHANH, CASE NO. C19-5171RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 WA STATE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’1 Motion to Dismiss for failure to 15 state a claim [Dkt. # 70]. Pro se plaintiff Bounchanh is a former DSHS and Washington Health 16 Care Authority employee. Bounchanh’s amended complaint is unclear and difficult to follow, but 17 it appears that he was either not promoted or was fired. He sued his former employers (and 18 others; there are 43 total defendants) for violating his rights, for failing to accommodate his 19 disability in violation of the ADA, and for bullying and retaliating against him. He also sued the 20 entities that investigating these claims (the BRC and the EEOC) when they determined that they 21 could not substantiate them. He appears to claim they conducted a negligent investigation. 22 23 1 The moving defendants are the Washington Human Rights Commission, and its employees Sharon Ortiz, Jeremy 24 Page, Idolina Reta, and Cheryl Strobert. 1 The Court previously dismissed Bounchanh’s union, Defendant AFCME [Dkt. # 68]. The 2 HRC and its individual employee defendants now seek dismissal of Bounchanh’s claims against 3 them. The HRC argues that it has Eleventh Amendment immunity, that there is no cognizable 4 claim for negligent investigation, and that Bounchanh has failed to articulate a plausible claim 5 against any of the HRC defendants—he has not articulated that any named HRC defendant did

6 anything to him, and he was clearly never employed by the HRC or any of its individual 7 employees. 8 Bounchanh’s response does not address any of these arguments. He asks the Court to 9 permit a jury to hear his claims and to view his undisputable and admissible evidence. He 10 reiterates that, in his view, the HRC did not do a fair thorough, objective and sincere 11 investigation into his claims about his treatment at the HCA (or the DSHS). He has still failed to 12 articulate any action by any individual HRC defendant, much less to articulate how it is 13 actionable under the authorities cited in the Motion to Dismiss. 14 Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable

15 legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri 16 v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff’s complaint must allege 17 facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 18 678 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual 19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 20 misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the court must accept as true the Complaint’s well-pled facts, 21 conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper 22 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Vazquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); 23 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation 24 1 to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, 2 and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations 3 must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 4 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnotes omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead 5 “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

6 678 (citing id.). 7 On a 12(b)(6) motion, “a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to 8 amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured 9 by the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 10 247 (9th Cir. 1990). However, where the facts are not in dispute, and the sole issue is whether 11 there is liability as a matter of substantive law, the court may deny leave to amend. Albrecht v. 12 Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195–96 (9th Cir. 1988). 13 Bounchanh’s claims against the HRC defendants are not plausible under this standard. 14 The HRC itself is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Bounchanh has failed to even

15 hint at any actionable conduct by the named individual HRC defendants through two iterations of 16 his complaint and a response to a motion to dismiss. There is not common law or statutory claim 17 for negligent investigation. See Pettis v State, 98 Wash. App. 553 (1999). Bounchanh’s claim 18 that his actual employer(s) bullied him is not legal or factual support for a plausible claim against 19 the HRC. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 24 1 For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Bounchanh’s claims against 2 the HRC and its individual employees are DISMISSED. Because there is nothing that 3 Bounchanh could add in a third proposed amended complaint that would change this analysis, 4 the dismissal is with prejudice and without leave to amend. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated this 16th day of August, 2019. 7 A 8 Ronald B. Leighton 9 United States District Judge

10 11

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