Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-03097/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-03097-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

1

 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3(a), any opposition was due no later than September 22,

2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUISE E. BURTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANCIS J. HARVEY, Secretary of the

Army, and LT. COL. EDWARD L. MELTON,

USMC,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-95-3097 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MELTON’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 42)

Before the Court is defendant Lt. Col. Edward L. Melton’s (“Melton”) motion to

dismiss the claims asserted against him, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To date, plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.1

Having considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court finds the matter

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and hereby vacates

the October 13, 2006 hearing.

As defendant points out, Title VII “provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims

of discrimination in federal employment.” See Brown v. General Services Administration,

425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976); see also White v. General Services Administration, 652 F.2d

Case 3:95-cv-03097-MMC Document 43 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 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

2

913, 916-917 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding Title VII is exclusive remedy in employment

discrimination actions against federal government and individual federal employees). 

Under Title VII, “there is no personal liability for employees, including supervisors[.]” See

Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 1994). Consequently, plaintiff has not

stated, and cannot state, a claim for employment discrimination against Melton.

Accordingly, Melton’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff’s

complaint against Melton is hereby DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:95-cv-03097-MMC Document 43 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 2