Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00063/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00063-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

 Plaintiff did not file written opposition to the motion but 1

appeared at the hearing and was permitted to argue in opposition.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEDRA J. RUSSELL, No. CIV.S-06-0063 FCD DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY ALCOHOL

AND DRUG BUREAU, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

This matter came before the court on September 29, 2006,

for hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeared

on her own behalf. Jesse M. Rivera appeared on behalf of defendants. 

Having considered all written materials submitted in connection with

the motion, and after hearing oral argument, defendants’ motion will 1

be granted and plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to

amend.

Case 2:06-cv-00063-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 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

2

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the

complaint. See North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d

578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the complaint or of any claim

within it “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or

the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal

theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990); see also Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749

F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the court accepts as true all material allegations in the

complaint and construes those allegations, as well as the reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from them, in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In a case where the plaintiff is pro se, the court has an obligation

to construe the pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,

1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)(en banc). However, the court’s liberal

interpretation of a pro se complaint may not supply essential

elements of a claim that are not pled. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d

469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

As discussed on the record during the hearing, plaintiff’s

complaint is very brief and does not amount to a short plain

statement of a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief nor

does the complaint set forth any factual allegations giving rise to

Case 2:06-cv-00063-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 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

3

federal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). On the

other hand, in light of plaintiff’s allegation that this action is

based upon her “being subjected to both Sexual Harassment and Racial

Discrimination in October 2003 to March 2004 resulting in a hostile

work environment” (Compl. at 1-2), the court finds that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. More

specifically, plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended

complaint to more plainly allege her hostile work environment claim 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Manatt v. Bank

of America, NA, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003)(listing elements of

hostile work environment claim under Title VII); Kang v. U. Lim Am.

Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2002)(same). If plaintiff chooses

to amend the complaint, she must also set forth the grounds upon

which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Moreover, the amended

complaint must include clear and concise factual allegations

describing the events which underlie her claims.

With respect to any amended complaint, plaintiff is

reminded that as a general matter supervisors such as defendant Toni

Moore cannot be held individually liable under Title VII. This is

because “civil liability for employment discrimination does not

extend to individual agents of the employer who committed the

violations, even if that agent is a supervisory employee[.]” Pink v.

Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.

1998); see Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th

Cir. 1993)(explaining that Title VII does not impose individual

liability on employees).

Case 2:06-cv-00063-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Next, the court is not persuaded by defendants’ argument

that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the

complaint fails to allege that plaintiff exhausted her administrative

remedies prior to filing suit. As discussed at the hearing,

plaintiff’s “right to sue” letter from the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission is attached to her complaint. See Mahoney v.

United States Postal Service, 884 F.2d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A

pro se litigant, however, who fails to name the appropriate defendant

in an otherwise viable complaint may avoid dismissal on

jurisdictional grounds by attaching to that complaint an

administrative order that names the correct defendant.”); see also

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richmond & Feiner Co., Inc., 896 F.2d

1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989)(district court may consider documents

attached to complaint without converting motion to dismiss into

motion for summary judgment). 

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer

to a prior pleading in order to make any amended complaint complete. 

Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in

itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as

a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the initial complaint no longer

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint,

as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended pleading which

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00063-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 4 of 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

5

fails to provide the necessary factual description will likely be

dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted; and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to file

an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this

order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 27, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\russell0063.mtd.order

Case 2:06-cv-00063-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 11/28/06 Page 5 of 5