Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01337/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01337-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David S. Barresi, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John E. Potter, Postmaster General, 

United States Postal Services,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-01337-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Dkt. 8).

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United

States Postal Service (“Defendant Potter”) on July 11, 2007, which was amended on

November 6, 2007, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation based on disability

and age in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791 and the Age and

Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 623. (Dkts. 4, 5). In response to

Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement, Plaintiff requests leave to file a Second

Amended Complaint (Dkt. 9). 

Defendant does not object to Plaintiff’s filing of a Second Amended Complaint, which

cures the deficiencies of the First Amended Complaint (Dkt 10). However, Defendant

contends that in Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities for his Request for Leave

to File a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to expand his Proposed Second

Amended Complaint beyond the document itself. Specifically, Defendant contends that

Case 2:07-cv-01337-GMS Document 11 Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 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

1

The parties do not define EEO, but the Court takes judicial notice that EEO refers to

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

- 2 -

Plaintiff, in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities, attempts to incorporate other events

encompassed in EEO1

 complaints not filed in this Court as well as additional claims from

three future EEO complaints that have yet to reach an administrative conclusion (Dkt. 10, ¶

2). Defendant requests that the Court permit Plaintiff to file his Second Amended Complaint

but limit Plaintiff’s causes of actions to the allegations set forth therein. (Dkt 10, ¶ 9).

Leave to amend shall be freely granted when justice requires. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). A district court, in its discretion, may deny

leave to amend where it determines that there has been a showing of undue delay, bad faith

on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendments,

undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the proposed amendment. Foman, 371

U.S. at 182. Because the Defendant does not object to Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint will be granted.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff cannot expand the scope of his claims by language in his

Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of [his] claim[s] showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

The complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Furthermore, the Ninth

Circuit has determined that federal employees who allege employment discrimination must

first exhaust available administrative remedies. See Vinieratos v. United States, 939 F.2d

762, 772 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars any

claim under the Rehabilitation Act). Thus, Plaintiff cannot bring EEO complaints that have

not reached an administrative conclusion and his attempt to include unexhausted claims in

the current lawsuit is impermissible.

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-01337-GMS Document 11 Filed 06/10/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended

Complaint (Dkt. 9). The Clerk shall file the Second Amended Complaint lodged at Docket

No. 9, exhibit 2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite

Statement (Dkt. 8) as moot.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01337-GMS Document 11 Filed 06/10/08 Page 3 of 3