(PS) King v. CA Dept. of Water Resources

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 4, 2020
• Docket: 2:17-cv-01257
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELISE KING, No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 The court previously granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, but 18 dismissed her original complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 19 Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint (ECF No. 11), as well as a motion for 20 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12). For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion for 21 appointment of counsel is denied and some, but not all, of the claims in the amended complaint 22 are dismissed for failure to state a claim. 23 I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) authorizes the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent 25 civil litigant in certain exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 26 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 28 undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 (9th Cir.1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335–36 (9th Cir.1990); Richards v. 2 Harper, 864 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1988). In considering whether exceptional circumstances exist, 3 the court must evaluate (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) the ability of 4 the plaintiff to articulate her claims in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 5 Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017. 6 The court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the complexity of the 7 issues, or the degree of plaintiff’s ability to articulate her claims amount to exceptional 8 circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request 9 for appointment of counsel is denied. 10 II. Screening Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) 11 As previously explained to plaintiff, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see 12 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be 13 dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief 14 that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) 15 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff’s 16 obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and 17 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action’s elements will not do. Factual 18 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption 19 that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate 20 based either on the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to 21 support cognizable legal theories. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 22 1990). 23 Under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in 24 question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the 25 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 26 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the pleading 27 requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a 28 complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 1 to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon 2 which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 3 Plaintiff’s brings this disability discrimination action against her former employer, the 4 California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), and eight of its employees. ECF No. 11. 5 The first amended complaint alleges that in 2011, just over a year after commencing her 6 employment with DWR, plaintiff was transferred to DWR’s Division of Safety Dams, Integrated 7 Regional Water Management. Id. ¶¶ 4 & 36. Shortly after the transfer, plaintiff made several 8 complaints regarding poor working conditions, including excessive dust, substandard restrooms, 9 and problems with pests in her building. Id. ¶ 37. She also complained to coworkers and 10 management that the department was failing to comply with state law and regulations. Id. In 11 response to her complaints, plaintiff was given unfavorable work assignments and subjected to 12 verbal hostility from her supervisors and coworkers. Id. The conflicts at work eventually led to 13 plaintiff being diagnosed with anxiety and depression in May 2014 and, ultimately, requiring her 14 to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Id. ¶ 38. 15 In July 2014, plaintiff’s physician provided DWR with a work status report, restricting 16 plaintiff from working at her customary worksite due to risks of “environmental/interpersonal 17 triggers.” Id. ¶¶ 27 & 40. She was also restricted from “all but incidental auditory/visual contact 18 with her Management team,” which limited her to only written communications; e.g. no meetings, 19 telephone calls, or verbal conversations. Id. ¶ 40. In response, plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly 20 informed her that she would need to remain on leave through the end of July because DWR could 21 not accommodate her restriction. Id. ¶ 41. Plaintiff continued to submit work status reports and 22 requests for reasonable accommodation, including requests to be assigned different supervisors or 23 be transferred to a different division or department. Id. ¶¶ 40-42, 44-54, 58-61, 65-71, 81-89. 24 DWR continued to approve plaintiff’s leave from work but continued to state it was unable to 25 accommodate her medical restrictions. Id. In September 2016, after plaintiff had exhausted her 26 available leave, DWR informed her that she was required to return to work. Id. ¶¶ 29, 90. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Plaintiff informed DWR that she would not be returning absent reasonable accommodations. Id. 2 ¶¶ 91-92. No accommodations were provided and when plaintiff failed to return to work, her 3 employment was terminated. Id. 4 Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act 5 (“ADA”) and Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Id. at 31-35. As discussed below, 6 the first amended complaint states a potential cognizable claim for violation of Section 504 of the 7 Rehabilitation Act against DWS, but her remaining claims must be dismissed. 8 With respect to her claim for violation of Title I of the ADA, plaintiff specifically states 9 that her ADA claim is brought only against the individual defendants. Id. ¶¶ 15, 97. The U.S. 10 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, however, that supervisors and coworkers may not 11 be held personally liable for violations of Title I of the ADA. Walsh v. Nevada Dept. of Human 12 Resources, 471 F.3d 1033, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for violation 13 of Title I of the ADA must be dismissed.2 14 Plaintiff also fails to state a claim under Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 15 § 791. Section 501 “obligates federal employers to provide reasonable accommodation for the 16 handicapped and to develop and implement affirmative action plans for handicapped employees,” 17 and provides the “exclusive remedy for handicap discrimination claims by federal employees.” 18 Johnston v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by 19 Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990). Because plaintiff was employed by DWS, 20 which is a state and not a federal agency, her Section 501 claim fails. Lopez v. Johnson, 333 F.3d 21 959, 961 (9th Cir. 2003). 22 Plaintiff also cannot state a Section 504 claim against the individual defendants. The 23 Rehabilitation Act does not permit suits against defendants in their individual capacities. Everett 24 H. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School Dist., 5 F. Supp. 3d 1167, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Under 25 the Rehabilitation Act only “programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance” may 26

27 2 Even if plaintiff’s Title I claim was brought against DWS, any request for damages would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 28 356, 360 (2001) (the Eleventh Amendment bars ADA claims against states). 1 be held liable. 29 U.S.C. § 794; Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th 2 Cir. 1999). 3 The complaint, however, does allege a potential cognizable claim for violation of Section 4 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against DWR. To state a Section 504 claim, a plaintiff must allege 5 (1) that she is disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, (2) that she is able to 6 perform the essential functions of her employment with or without reasonable accommodation, 7 (3) the defendant receives federal financial assistance, and (4) plaintiff was subjected to 8 discrimination on account of her disability. Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of California, 166 F.3d 9 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999). “An organization that receives federal funds violates § 504 if it 10 denies a qualified individual with a disability a reasonable accommodation that the individual 11 needs in order to enjoy meaningful access to the benefits of public services.” Mark H. v. 12 Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010); see Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1154 13 (9th Cir.2002) (“A failure to provide reasonable accommodation can constitute discrimination 14 under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.”). Upon learning of the need for a reasonable 15 accommodation, the employer is required “to engage in an interactive process with the employee 16 to identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations.” Humphrey v. Memorial 17 Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 Here, plaintiff alleges that she developed depression due to ongoing harassment at work, 19 which necessitated the need for her to take a leave from work. ECF No. 11 ¶¶ 37-38. These 20 allegations are sufficient to allege that plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the 21 Rehabilitation Act. See McAlindin v. Cnty. of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226, 1232-35 (9th Cir 1999) 22 (a mental impairment is considered a disability where it substantially limits a major life activity, 23 including the ability to work). Plaintiff also alleges that she would have been able to perform her 24 job’s essential function if she had been provided an accommodation. Id. ¶¶ 31-32, 40, 78. She 25 further claims that DWS received federal funding. Id. ¶ 55. Lastly, she claims that she was 26 subjected to discrimination based on defendant’s refusal to engage in the interactive process and 27 to provide a reasonable accommodation. Specifically, she claims DWS refused to allow her to 28 work at a different work site and limit direct interactions with supervisors, as well as rejected her 1 requests to transfer to a different division or department. Id. ¶¶ 40-42, 44-54, 58-61, 65-71, 81- 2 89; see Buckingham v. United States, 998 F.2d. 735, 740 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting argument that 3 under the Rehabilitation Act, there is a per se rule that transferring employee to another location 4 is not a reasonable accommodation). She further claims that the failure to provide a reasonable 5 accommodation caused all of her leave to be exhausted and, ultimately, resulted in her 6 employment being terminated. ECF No. 11 ¶¶ 91-92. 7 These allegations, although disputed, are sufficient to state a potentially cognizable 8 Section 504 claim against DWR. But as discussed above, plaintiff’s remaining claims must be 9 dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff may either proceed only on the potentially cognizable claim 10 against DWR claim for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or she may amend her 11 complaint to attempt to cure the first amended complaint’s deficiencies. Plaintiff is not obligated 12 to amend her complaint. 13 Should plaintiff choose to amend her complaint, she is informed that any amended 14 complaint must allege a cognizable legal theory against proper defendant and sufficient facts in 15 support of that cognizable legal theory. The amended complaint shall clearly set forth the 16 allegations against each defendant and shall specify a basis for this court’s subject matter 17 jurisdiction. Any amended complaint shall plead plaintiff’s claims in “numbered paragraphs, 18 each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” as required by Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 10(b), and shall be in double-spaced text on paper that bears line numbers in the 20 left margin, as required by Eastern District of California Local Rules 130(b) and 130(c). Any 21 amended complaint shall also use clear headings to delineate each claim alleged and against 22 which defendant or defendants the claim is alleged, as required by Rule 10(b), and must plead 23 clear facts that support each claim under each header. 24 Additionally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to 25 make an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 26 complete in itself. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the 27 original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, once 28 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 1 | Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not 2 | alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 3 || 1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik v. 4 | Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to 5 || comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order 6 || may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied. 9 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges, for screening purposes, a potentially 10 || cognizable claim for violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against defendant DWR. 11 3. All other claims are dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service of this 12 | order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend her complaint. 13 4. Within thirty days plaintiff shall return the notice below advising the court whether she 14 | elects to proceed with the cognizable claim or file an amended complaint. If the former option is 15 || selected and returned, the court will enter an order directing service at that time. 16 5. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. 17 || Dated: March 4, 2020.

19 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ELISE KING, No. 2:17-cv-1257-MCE-EFB PS 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. NOTICE 12 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to: 16

17 (1) ______ proceed only with the First Amendment freedom of religion claim 18 identified against defendant Pompey; 19 OR 20 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. 21

22 _________________________________ 23 Plaintiff 24 Dated: 25

26 27 28