Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00195/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00195-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHA’LENA ELLIZABETHANN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv195-LAB (KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KAISER PERMANENTE, et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se litigant Sha'lena Ellis sued Southern California Permanente Medical Group and

her three supervisors (“Kaiser”) for, among other things, discrimination, retaliation, and

wrongful termination when Kaiser fired her after ten years of employment. Kaiser says it fired

Ellis because of her “chronic tardiness and a spate of errors in administering patient

vaccines and submitting laboratory samples.” Ellis says Kaiser retaliated against her

because she’s black, disabled, and was pregnant. Ellis moved for summary judgment on her

14 claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VII, and the ADA.

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party demonstrates that “there

is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Ellis hasn’t offered any argument, authority, or

evidence that shows her claims are undisputed. The motion for summary judgment is

denied.

- 1 - 16cv195

Case 3:16-cv-00195-LAB-KSC Document 69 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

II. Dismissal

Last year, the Court granted Ellis’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. The statute requires the Court to “dismiss the case at any time” if the

action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” And the Court “may dismiss a

claim sua sponte” when the party “cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc.,

813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). Some of Ellis’s claims fall into this category.

A. The § 1983 Claims

The Court dismisses all of Ellis’s § 1983 claims because Kaiser is a private

employer—none of the defendants were acting “under color of state law” or engaged in state

action. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982); Tate v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.,

2014 WL 176625, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) (granting summary judgment on § 1983

claims because Kaiser not a state actor). The Court dismisses claims 1–3 and 11–14 with

prejudice.

B. The Title VII and ADA claims

Ellis has no claims against her supervisors in their individual capacity under Title VII

or the ADA. Walsh v. Nevada Dep't of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1038 (9th Cir. 2006). But

Ellis can sue her supervisors in their official capacity as agents of Kaiser. Miller v. Maxwell's

Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993); Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1399 (D.C. Cir.

1995) (“a supervisory employee may be joined as a party defendant in a Title VII action” but

is “viewed as being sued in his capacity as the agent of the employer, who is alone liable”).

Since Ellis is a pro se litigant, and Kaiser hasn’t moved to dismiss, the Court charitably

interprets her complaint as suing her supervisors in their official capacity as representatives

of Kaiser and refrains from dismissing those claims at this time.

* * *

In sum, the only causes of action remaining are claims 4–10 under § 1981, Title VII,

and the ADA.

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 16cv195

Case 3:16-cv-00195-LAB-KSC Document 69 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

III. The Motion to Add Defendants

Ellis also seeks to add another five defendants in their official capacity to the action.

Courts should freely give leave to amend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. But the Court needs more than

a list of five names.

If Ellis wants to file a second amended complaint that adds these parties, she needs

to file a new motion for leave to amend that complies with Local Civil Rule 15.1. At a

minimum, that means filing two versions of a proposed amended complaint: one version

that’s redlined to show the proposed changes; and, a second, clean version that Ellis wants

to become the new, operative complaint. The changes must address who each defendant

is, what they did, and why Ellis thinks she has a cause of action against them. 

Before filing any new motion, Ellis should first do her best to research whether or not

the law allows her to state a valid claim against these proposed new defendants. The Court

also reminds Ellis that she needs to read and comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court’s Standing Order before filing future motions.

III. Conclusion

To be clear: the Court isn’t saying that Ellis doesn’t have a case. The Court is troubled

by Ellis’s accusations that her supervisor interfered with Ellis’s pay while on maternity leave

whereas other “white nurse[s] had the comfort of paid leave.” As well as Ellis’s allegations

that white colleagues were given “verbal warnings for the same mislabeling specimen type

incidents” that Kaiser fired Ellis for. And the Court recognizes that Ellis’s struggles to battle

cancer, treat her heart arrhythmia, and overcome a miscarriage impacted her attendance at

work. But at this stage, Ellis’s accusations are still in dispute. Her motions for summary

judgment and to add additional defendants are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2017

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv195

Case 3:16-cv-00195-LAB-KSC Document 69 Filed 06/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3