Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01821/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01821-1/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

Eddie Pratt,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Office of Civil Rights, Colorado Dept. of

Education, and Gateway Comm. College,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-1821-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

On June 13, 2013, the Court issued the following order (quoted in part):

A. Motion to Dismiss

...

Gateway has also argued that the Complaint fails to state a claim. The

Complaint (quoted in its entirety) alleges as follows:

I the plaintiff Eddie L. Pratt ask for a plea for relief and

justice; resulting from a perceived loss of integrity, humiliated

[sic], stature, dignity, harassment, abridged human rights, and

slavery. That is why we need Titles’ V, VI, VII of the Civil

Rights Act, HR, 7152 to prevent [sic] where Federal Funds are

involved. Title VI, and the Title VII is sound; it is [sic]

constitutional right. Now, what will it accomplish? It will

guarantee that the money collected by colorblind tax collectors

will be distributed by Federal and State administrator [sic] who

are equally colorblind, eliminate [sic] discrimination.

I file [sic] a complaint with both [sic] Office of Civil

Rights - Attorney Thomas Rock and EEOC Rayford Irvin;

“hostile environment” wrongful termination, and discrimination.

They did not follow policy and procedure. [citation omitted].

The agencies didn’t investigate my case; which violated my civil

rights [citation omitted]; unlawful basis; none [sic] white [sic]

get less hours, less pay, while whites get more hours and more

Case 2:12-cv-01821-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/17/13 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

- 2 -

pay. In fact, they dismiss [sic] my case and never gave me an

appeal, and also denied a waiver. [citation omitted].

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares

that no state may not [sic] “deny” to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protect [sic] of the laws. [citation omitted].

Doc. 1.

Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so that the defendant has “fair notice of

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

47 (1957)). Here, Defendant Gateway is never mentioned in the Complaint.

Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim against this Defendant under

Twombly and the motion to dismiss will be granted. To the extent Plaintiff

responded to this motion by a motion (Doc. 13), Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied.

B. Motion for Sanctions

Defendant Gateway has also moved for sanctions under Rule 11(b)

against Plaintiff for her various filings, including her continuous efforts to

seeks default against Defendant Gateway while its motion to dismiss is

pending. Doc. 29. Defendant Gateway argues that these motions are for the

purposes of harassment and to increase the costs of the litigation. The Court

agrees. Therefore, Defendant Gateway may file a motion for attorneys fees for

the time expended in responding to Plaintiff’s five pending motions relating

[to] default (Docs. 21, 22, 23, 25, and 31). To the extent Plaintiff has opposed

the request for sanctions by a motion (Doc. 34), Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

Further, all the pending motions for default will be denied.

Doc. 41 at 1-3.

Now, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Order. The Court finds no basis for

reconsideration; accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

Next, consistent with the Court’s Order, Defendant Gateway has moved for attorney’s

fees. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule Civil 7.2(i), the Court

summarily grants the motion.

Two defendants remain in this case: (1) the Colorado Department of Education and

(2) the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. The latter has moved to

dismiss and that motion remains pending. It would appear that this Court lacks personal

jurisdiction over the Colorado Department of Civil Rights. Plaintiff will be required to show

cause why the Colorado Department of Civil Rights should not be dismissed.

Case 2:12-cv-01821-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/17/13 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 -

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 42) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gateway’s motion for attorney’s fees

(Doc. 43) in the amount of $1,054.00 is granted; Gateway is awarded $1,054.00 against

Plaintiff.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that by January 13, 2014, Plaintiff shall file a

memorandum showing cause why Defendant Colorado Department of Education should not

be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (the Office of Civil Rights motion to dismiss

remains pending).

DATED this 17th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01821-JAT Document 57 Filed 12/17/13 Page 3 of 3