Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Luckey
Plaintiff
Visalia Unified School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB

ORDER SCREENING THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND FINDING SERVICE OF 

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE

ECF NO. 12

Plaintiff Timothy Luckey (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

action. Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on March 8, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) The 

operative pleading in this action is the Third Amended Complaint filed on September 26, 2013. 

(ECF No. 12.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint 

states cognizable claims against Defendant Visalia Unified School District under Title VII.

I.

SCREENING

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case filed by a plaintiff 

proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the 

Court uses the same pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 10/07/13 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

Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces 

does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are 

‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility 

and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, 

although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need 

not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II.

PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names Visalia Unified School District (“Defendant” or “VUSD”) as the 

defendant in the Third Amended Complaint. (Third Am. Compl. 1:10-11.) Plaintiff alleges that 

his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.) 

were violated by Defendant. (Third Am. Compl. 3:21-22.) Plaintiff alleges that he was 

subjected to differential treatment based upon his race (black) and sex (male). (Third Am. 

Compl. 2:17-21.)

Plaintiff alleges that he was mistreated by Jim Sullivan, the new principal at Crestwood 

Elementary School.1 (Third Am. Compl. 1:15-16.) Plaintiff alleges that he was segregated and 

isolated from other staff and students. (Third Am. Compl. 1:20.) Plaintiff complained to Jim 

Sullivan and to “Human Resources” about “Feeling Sex Discrimination And Jim Not Letting 

[Plaintiff] Rotate With Women Of My Equal Position And Qualifications.” (Third Am. Compl. 

 

1 Although not alleged anywhere in his Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s prior pleadings alleged that he was 

employed by Defendant at Crestwood Elementary School. (See Second Am. Compl. 2:11.)

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 10/07/13 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

1:20-22.) Plaintiff also complained that Jim Sullivan “Did Not Really Care For My Ethnic 

Background And Students Of My Ethnic Background.” (Third Am. Compl. 1:22-24.)

Plaintiff further alleges that other, non-black female co-workers were given preferential 

treatment by Jim Sullivan, including “Better Assignments And Evaluations.” (Third Am. 

Compl. 1:26-2:1.) Plaintiff further alleges that he was reprimanded for his complaints. (Third 

Am. Compl. 2:1-3.)

On March 22, 2010, Plaintiff was told by Fernie Marroquin that he would receive a 

“Reprimand For Future Behavior” and would only work 0.25 hours the following school year. 

(Third Am. Compl. 2:3-4.) Plaintiff was told that his hours were reduced due to budget cuts. 

(Third Am. Compl. 2:3-5.) Plaintiff told Fernie Marroquin that he filed a charge with the EEOC 

because of mistreatment from Jim Sullivan. (Third Am. Compl. 2:5-6.) A few weeks later, 

Fernie Marroquin asked Plaintiff to resign or be discharged effective May 11, 2010. (Third Am. 

Compl. 2:8-9.) Plaintiff contends that he was constructively discharged. (Third Am. Compl. 

2:17.)

Plaintiff alleges that he informed the EEOC about an incident when Jim Sullivan was 

speaking negatively about black children and black parents, which made Plaintiff feel 

uncomfortable. (Third Am. Compl. 2:23-24.) Plaintiff further alleges that Jim Sullivan expelled 

two black students and “Put [Plaintiff] In A gated Area And Denied [Plaintiff] Rotation With 

Any Of The Women Of My Equal Position And Qualifications.” (Third Am. Compl. 2:26-27.) 

Plaintiff also alleges that he received a negative evaluation. (Third Am. Compl. 3:9-13.)

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Title VII Claim

Liberally construed, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him on the 

basis of his race and sex. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on “race, color, 

religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Plaintiff contends that he was 

isolated, given worse assignments, and given worse evaluations than non-black and non-male 

employees. Plaintiff also alleges that he was reprimanded, given reduced work hours and was 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 10/07/13 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

eventually constructively discharged. Liberally construed, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for 

race and sex based discrimination under Title VII.

B. Plaintiff’s Retaliation Claim Under Title VII

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint attempts to raise a retaliation 

claim under Title VII. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e, et seq.), it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee who “has 

opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he 

has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, 

proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); see also Ray v. 

Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff alleges that VUSD officials asked Plaintiff to resign or be discharged after he 

filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging race and sex based discrimination.2 Liberally 

construed, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for retaliation under Title VII.

C. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims

In his prior pleadings, Plaintiff claimed that school officials breached a settlement 

agreement with Plaintiff and engaged in slander. However, these allegations do not appear in 

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint only briefly alludes to 

the settlement agreement and alleges that the settlement agreement was not kept.

The Court informed Plaintiff on two prior occasions that amended complaints must be 

complete in and of itself without reference to any prior or superseded pleading. (See Order 

Dismissing Pl.’s First Am. Compl., With Leave to File a Second Am. Compl. Within Thirty (30) 

Days 9:8-9.) Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint expressly states that Plaintiff’s claim is under 

Title VII. (Third Am. Compl. 3:21-22.) Since Plaintiff omitted the allegation of facts pertaining 

to claims beyond those under Title VII, the Court presumes that Plaintiff does not wish to assert 

any other claims beyond those under Title VII in this action.

/ / /

 

2

Plaintiff attached a charge letter to his third amended complaint. It is unclear if this document is a copy of the 

claim Plaintiff filed with the EEOC prior to the termination of his employment, as it is undated and unsigned.

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 10/07/13 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

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and finds that it states 

cognizable claims for relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Defendant 

Visalia Unified School District. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following Defendant:

VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, a 

Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the 

Third Amended Complaint filed on September 26, 2013.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the 

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to 

the Court with the following documents:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant; and

c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed complaint filed on September 26, 2013;

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendant and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the 

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendant pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that 

this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 10/07/13 Page 5 of 5