Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00384/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00384-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SRIKANTH TANGIRALA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0384 FCD GGH PS

vs.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, ORDER

U.S. Postal Service, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Presently pending before this court are motions to dismiss or strike plaintiff’s

complaint and amended complaints, or for more definite statement, filed by the federal

defendants, the California Medical Board, and the California Department of Managed Medical

Care. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and the time for doing so has passed. E. D. Cal. L. R.

78-230(c) (opposition shall be filed and served on the opposing party not less than fourteen days

preceding the hearing date). While plaintiff’s failure to oppose defendants’ motions is properly

construed as acquiescence thereto, E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c), 11-110, and 83-183, the court will

address the merits. The hearing on these matters, presently scheduled for September 28, 2006, is

vacated and the motions submitted for decision on the papers. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(h).

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 09/22/06 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

2

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2006, plaintiff filed his initial complaint and an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. The application was denied March 10, 2006, and plaintiff paid the

filing fee on March 13, 2006. The complaint alleges “discrimination and harassment due to

disability” by plaintiff’s employer, the U.S. Postal Service, the only defendant named therein. 

The complaint asserts it follows an adverse administrative decision and seeks correction of time

sheets, lost wages, costs and “up to ten million” dollars compensation each from the “United

States Postal Service and the programs, the agencies, the organizations who contributed to

United States Postal Service to discriminate, harass and forced me directly or indirectly to go for

surgery.”

On May 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a document designated by the Clerk’s office as an

“Amended Complaint.” That document seeks to “add” additional “persons and parties” to

plaintiff’s action, specifically “EEOC at USPS,” “OFO,” “OWCP,” the “Medical Board of

California,” the “Department of Managed Health Care of California” (all identified as “those

who investigated and drove conclusions with regards to” plaintiff’s complaints), and physicians

Gebeh, Scholey, Ylannan and Merill (designated as “some of those who treated me for my

injury”).

Plaintiff lodged an additional document with the court on July 10, 2006, and filed

a further document on July 28, 2006, both duplicative of the information contained in plaintiff’s

May 25 “amended complaint” but nonetheless designated by the Clerk’s office as, respectively, a

“Lodged Amended Complaint” and “Second Amended Complaint.” 

On July 20, 2006, the California Department of Managed Health Care filed a

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint or for more definite statement, as amended by

motion filed July 21, 2006; on August 9, 2006, the Department moved to dismiss plaintiff’s

“second amended complaint” or for more definite statement. Also on July 20, 2006, the

California Medical Board filed its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint or for more

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 09/22/06 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

3

definite statement; on August 15, 2006, the Board moved to dismiss plaintiff’s “second amended

complaint” or for more definite statement. On July 24, 2006, the U.S. Postal Service and other

federal defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint, and on August 14, 2006,

moved to strike or dismiss plaintiff’s “second amended complaint.” 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s documents filed July 10 and July 28, 2006 provide information

identical to that set forth in plaintiff’s May 25, 2006 “amended complaint,” and are therefore

stricken from the record. Fed. Rules Civ. P. 12(f) (redundant matter stricken upon court’s

initiative). Accordingly, the following motions are denied as moot: The August 9, 2006 motion

filed by the California Department of Managed Health Care to dismiss plaintiff’s “second

amended complaint” or for more definite statement; the August 15, 2006 motion filed by the

California Medical Board to dismiss plaintiff’s “second amended complaint” or for more definite

statement; and the August 14, 2006 motion filed by the federal defendants to strike or dismiss

plaintiff’s “second amended complaint.”

Further, plaintiff’s “amended complaint” filed May 25, 2005, does not meet the

requirements for designation as either an amended complaint or a supplemental complaint, even

upon a liberal reading routinely accorded pro se filings. An amended complaint under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a) must be complete in itself without reference to any prior or superseded pleading. 

E.D. Cal. L. R. 15-220. Plaintiff’s documents make no sense unless read together. A

supplemental complaint is limited to “transactions or occurrences or events which have happened

since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Plaintiff’s

second document names additional defendants relative to the transactions set forth in her original

complaint; it does not reference subsequent events.

Additional problems are presented by the format and content of both of plaintiff’s

filings. While the complaint appears to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which would confer upon this court federal subject matter

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 09/22/06 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

4

jurisdiction, it fails adequately to demonstrate such jurisdiction or exhaustion of administrative

remedies or to put defendants on notice of the claims against them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S. Ct. 99, 103 (1957); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1202 (2d ed. 1990); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798

(9th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, both the “complaint” filed February 23, 2006, and “amended

complaint” filed May 25, 2006, must be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted). The court hereby accords plaintiff twenty days from the

date of service of this order to serve and file a “Second Amended Complaint,” so labeled and

bearing the civil docket number assigned this case; plaintiff must file an original and two copies.

Plaintiff is further advised that the “Second Amended Complaint” cannot refer to a prior pleading

but must be complete in itself and will become the only operative complaint. E. D. Cal. L. R. 15-

220. The complaint must comply with general rules of pleading, as set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a), which require clear statements of (1) the court’s jurisdiction, (2) claims showing entitlement

to relief, and (3) demand for relief. See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (authorizing the court to strike

a pleading or portion thereof if it “is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be

required to frame a responsive pleading”). Plaintiff must clearly assert which federal

constitutional or statutory rights have been violated; exhaustion of administrative remedies;

clearly name, identify and distinguish among all defendants; and show the particular claim(s)

against each defendant. Defendants may be grouped in meaningful ways, but claims vaguely

referring to “defendants” are insufficient. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.

1996).

Accordingly, the following motions are granted: The July 21, 2006 amended

motion filed by the California Department of Managed Health Care to dismiss plaintiff’s

“amended complaint” or for more definite statement; the July 20, 2006 motion filed by the

California Medical Board to dismiss plaintiff’s “amended complaint” or for more definite

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 09/22/06 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

5

statement; and the July 24, 2006 motion filed by the federal defendants to strike or dismiss

plaintiff’s “amended complaint.” Defendants’ remaining motions are denied as moot, as set forth

supra.

Should plaintiff fail timely to file an adequate “Second Amended Complaint,” this

court will recommend dismissal of this action.

So ordered.

DATED: 9/22/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

U.S. Magistrate Judge

NOW6:Tangirala0384

Case 2:06-cv-00384-FCD-GGH Document 36 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 5