Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00771/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00771-2/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

1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ERIC J. QUIGLEY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-00771 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST

FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

[re: docket no. 19, 23]

I. BACKGROUND

On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff Eric J. Quigley filed a complaint (“complaint”) pursuant to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging employment discrimination. Plaintiff acts pro

se. The complaint named the State of California, Office of the Attorney General (“Attorney

General”), as the only defendant. The complaint indicates that the action is for termination of

employment, failure to promote, and for other acts described by Plaintiff:

I was treated less favorably because I was not closely associated with the group of

people at that Division whom are largely all from that area and who share a

culture and other similar social characteristics that comes from that particular

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 7
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

 The Court noted in its September 21, 2006 order that while this declaration adds great

detail regarding the circumstances of Plaintiff’s employment, it does not describe the alleged

discriminatory conduct in any more detail than did the original complaint.

2

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

place. It could be shown that may be defined as a smaller ethnic group, of people

sharing a common culture, ancestry, and/or other similar social characteristics. 

This group discriminates against anyone who does not belong to or is closely

associated with that particular ethnic group. The harassment of restrictive

workplace policies and ongoing efforts of constructive discharge gravitate to an

unlawful dismissal.

Complaint ¶ 4. Plaintiff alleges that the conduct was discriminatory on the bases of race or color,

and national origin. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff describes the basic facts surrounding his claim as follows:

I was discriminated against because I opposed prohibited practices in matters of

equal employment opportunity. This is a mixed-motives case based on the

retaliatory and discriminatory reasons based upon my age, race, color, and OSHA

and Labor Relations matters. That the same set of facts may be stated in claim of

overlapping bases of prohibited discrimination. That this employer has

unlawfully discharged my employ based on these reasons.

Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiff does not identify his employer in the complaint.

Also on February 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and a request for appointment of counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B). 

The Court denied Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his request

for appointment of counsel on March 20, 2006. Plaintiff filed a second application for

appointment of counsel with a supporting declaration on March 30, 2006. The supporting

declaration included a substantial number of factual allegations and identified the California

Department of Water Resources (“CDWR”) as Plaintiff’s employer at the time of the alleged

discriminatory actions. On September 21, 2006, the Court denied the second request for

appointment of counsel and the second application to proceed in forma pauperis.2

On July 12, 2006, the Attorney General answered the complaint, asserting numerous

affirmative defenses. On September 1, 2006, the Court held an initial case management

conference. The Court indicated that service should be perfected by October 2, 2006. 

On September 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Complaint Amendment -

Defendants’” (“amendment”) that added defendants California Department of Industrial

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 2 of 7
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

 On December 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed a request for referral to the Federal Pro Bono

Project. Referral to the Federal Pro Bono panel is the relief provided when the Court grants a

motion for appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court considers the request as equivalent to

the earlier requests for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff has not addressed the issues that the

Court identified in issuing its March 20, 2006, and September 19, 2006, orders. Accordingly, the

Court will deny the request. At the same time, the Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to seek a

free legal consultation through the Santa Clara County Bar Association.

3

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

Relations (“CDIR”), CDWR, California State Personnel Board (“CSPB”), Arnold

Schwarzenegger (“the Governor”), and Stationary Engineer Local 39 International Union of

Operating Engineers (“Local 39”). The amendment does not add to the factual allegations of the

complaint or name Plaintiff’s employer. 

On October 16, 2006, CDIR moved to dismiss the complaint. CDIR argues that: (1) the

addition of party defendants in the amendment was improper; (2) service of the summons and

complaint on CDIR was improper; (3) the amendment should be stricken under Rule 12(f)

because it was filed without leave of court; and (4) Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument on

December 15, 2006.3

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under

any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King &

Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s

allegations are taken as true, and the Court must construe the complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The pleading of a

pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney, and is to

be afforded the benefit of any doubt. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Karim-Panahi

v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, a pro se litigant

must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint

cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir.

1995). 

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 7
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

 The Court noted its concerns regarding the vagueness of the allegations of

discriminatory conduct in its two orders denying appointment of counsel.

4

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

III. DISCUSSION

1. Failure to State a Claim

CDIR argues that the Court should dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. CDIR contends that Plaintiff does not allege that he was ever

employed by CDIR or that he was discriminated against by CDIR on a prohibited basis, and that

the EEOC did not issue a Right-to-Sue-Notice permitting him to sue CDIR for a violation of

Title VII. 

In the amendment, Plaintiff “respectfully submit[s] [] defendants as those that [he] now

may have a claim against,” including “The California Department of Industrial Relations for both

it’s [sic] Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and Division of Occupational Safety and

Health in their failures to investigate and act upon my complaints alleging code violation and

discriminatory retaliation in the workplace on the basis of various California codified statute

sections.” Amendment 2. Plaintiff makes no other factual allegations against CDIR. Plaintiff

does not respond in his opposition to CDIR’s arguments regarding the failure to state a claim.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against CDIR for violation of Title

VII. Plaintiff stated at oral argument that he brings suit against CDIR because it allegedly did not

pursue his complaints of discrimination and enforce his rights as required by law. However,

Plaintiff has failed to state allegations against CDIR with a sufficient degree of specificity for the

Court to determine whether he may proceed against CDIR on a Title VII claim or on any other

cause of action. Conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim, even for a pro se

plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint against CDIR.

The Court also must determine whether it should grant Plaintiff leave to amend his

complaint against CDIR. The Court is concerned that, ten months into the litigation, it is still

unclear what prohibited discriminatory action Plaintiff alleges.4 The core of the complaint

appears to be that CDWR constructively discharged Plaintiff for prohibited, discriminatory

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 4 of 7
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

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

reasons. It appears that any claim against CDIR necessarily depends on this alleged violation of

Title VII. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it should not allow any amendment of the

complaint as it pertains to CDIR until CDWR has responded to the complaint. Accordingly, the

Court will dismiss the complaint against CDIR without prejudice to a future motion for leave to

amend. 

a. Distinction Among Defendants and Procedural Posture Resulting From Dismissal

of CDIR

The Court is concerned by Plaintiff’s apparent confusion as to the need to identify the

specific legal harm allegedly caused by the conduct of each state agency he wishes to sue. 

Plaintiff repeatedly stated at oral argument that he is guided by the theory that he was employed

by the State of California and that the State as a whole should be held responsible for any legal

harms he suffered. While the Court understands Plaintiff’s argument, it nonetheless must

analyze the strength of the case against CDIR on the basis of specific legal claims made against it

and the strength of facts alleged in support of these claims. The Court also must analyze any

similar challenges made by other individual defendants on the basis of the specific legal claims

against them. 

Plaintiff must consider his claims against each individual defendant as he proceeds. The

procedural posture of this case has become more complicated over time, and Plaintiff must

recognize the different procedural postures of the various defendants. CDWR, Plaintiff’s

employer, whose alleged actions provide the impetus for the complaint, remains a defendant. 

CDWR has not made an appearance, and CDIR suggests that CDWR may not have been served

properly. As the Court noted at oral argument, one option available to a plaintiff if a properlyserved defendant does not respond is to move for entry of default judgment. The Attorney

General also remains a defendant and has answered the complaint. CSPB, the Governor, and

Local 39 are in the same position as CDWR: they have not made an appearance and may not

have been served properly. 

As a result of this order, CDIR no longer is a defendant in this case. If Plaintiff wishes to

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

amend his pleading to bring CDIR back into the case, he must file a motion for leave to amend

explaining why CDIR should be included in the case. However, the Court will not entertain such

a motion until CDWR has responded to the complaint or the Court has entered default judgment

against it. 

2. Addition of Defendants, Adequacy of Service, and Motion to Strike

The Court need not consider the other grounds for CDIR’s motion to dismiss. The Court

expresses no opinion as to the addition of defendants, the adequacy of service, or whether it

should grant the motion to strike.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED without prejudice to a motion for leave to amend.

DATED: December 19, 2006.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Case No. C 06-00771 JF

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO FEDERAL PRO

BONO PANEL

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Austin Jacobs Cattermole austin.cattermole@doj.ca.gov, laurie.gleason@doj.ca.gov 

Benjamin Cintz bcintz@dir.ca.gov 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

Eric J. Quigley

Post Office Box 8173

Salinas, CA 93912

Case 5:06-cv-00771-JF Document 24 Filed 12/19/06 Page 7 of 7