Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01273/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01273-0/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cynthia Perez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Southwest Airlines; and International

Association of Machinists, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1273-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Cynthia Perez commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against

Defendants Southwest Airlines and the International Association of Machinists. Dkt. #1.

Defendant Southwest Airlines has filed a motion for more definite statement pursuant to

Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #12. The Court will dismiss the

complaint without prejudice and deny the motion as moot.

I. Dismissal of the Complaint.

“[A] federal court may dismiss sua sponte if jurisdiction is lacking.” Fiedler v. Clark,

714 F.2d 77, 78 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. R.y. Co. v. Swan,

111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884)); see Franklin v. Or. State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th

Cir. 1981) (same). “While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when

a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336

F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever

it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the

Case 2:07-cv-01273-DGC Document 15 Filed 10/23/07 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

27

28

- 2 -

subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”).

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint contain

“a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends[.]”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s complaint lacks a jurisdictional statement. See Dkt. #1. 

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to federal statutes, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction

over a case only if (a) the complaint alleges a federal claim or (b) the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1332(a). Plaintiff’s complaint asserts neither basis for federal jurisdiction. See Dkt. #1.

The Court accordingly will dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Scholastic Entm’t, 336 F.3d at 989 (affirming sua sponte dismissal

of non-federal claims); Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1343 (affirming sua sponte dismissal of claims

that “[did] not allege the deprivation of any constitutional right or state a federal cause of

action”); see also Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (stating that the court presumes lack of

jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise).

II. Leave to Amend the Complaint.

“In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, the court must construe the

pleading liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A.

Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to

amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

could not be cured by amendment.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).

The instant complaint alleges that Plaintiff was harassed by a coworker of “white

de[s]cent” and was wrongfully terminated. Dkt. #1 at 1-2. The complaint further alleges that

Plaintiff was “discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against.” Id. at 4. Construing the

complaint liberally, it appears that Plaintiff may be able to allege a violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Section 2000e-2 of Title

VII provides that an employer may not “discharge any individual . . . because of [her] race[.]”

Case 2:07-cv-01273-DGC Document 15 Filed 10/23/07 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

27

28

- 3 -

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). “This provision makes ‘disparate treatment’ based on race a

violation of federal law.” Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654 (9th

Cir. 2002).

To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over a Title VII claim, however, the

plaintiff must first exhaust her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or the appropriate State agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f); see EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1994) (“To establish federal

subject matter jurisdiction, [Plaintiff] was required to exhaust her EEOC administrative

remedies before seeking federal adjudication of her claims); Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451,

1456 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Title VII claimants generally establish federal court jurisdiction by

first exhausting their EEOC administrative remedies. . . . The jurisdictional scope of a Title

VII claimant’s court action depends upon the scope of both the EEOC charge and the EEOC

investigation.”). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s complaint whether she has exhausted her

administrative remedies sufficient to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Giving Plaintiff the

benefit of the doubt, the Court will assume that Plaintiff, in good faith, can allege that she has

exhausted her administrative remedies with respect the potential claim of race discrimination.

The Court will allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that properly invokes this

Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have until November 16, 2007 to file an amended

complaint.

III. Plaintiff’s Obligations.

Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”),

which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. For purposes of the amended

complaint, Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)

provides that a complaint “shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon

which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the

pleader seeks.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in

Case 2:07-cv-01273-DGC Document 15 Filed 10/23/07 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

27

28

- 4 -

separate and discrete paragraphs. Rule 8(e) provides that each such paragraph “shall be

simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). The forms contained in the Appendix

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – which include forms regarding jurisdictional

statements and sample complaints on various causes of action – “are sufficient under the

rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules

contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84.

Plaintiff is advised that vague references to harassment and discrimination are

insufficient to satisfy even the liberal notice pleading requirements of Rule 8. The amended

complaint must give Defendants “fair notice of what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the grounds

upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This

includes some factual basis for the claim and the specific legal theory supporting the claim.

See id. The amended complaint must also provide a clear statement of this Court’s

jurisdiction and the relief Plaintiff seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (3).

Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to prosecute this action or comply with the

rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. #1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff has until November 16, 2007 to file an amended complaint consistent

with this order.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action without further notice if

Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline.

Case 2:07-cv-01273-DGC Document 15 Filed 10/23/07 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

27

28

- 5 -

4. Defendant Southwest Airlines’ motion for more definite statement (Dkt. #12)

is denied as moot.

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01273-DGC Document 15 Filed 10/23/07 Page 5 of 5