Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04146/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04146-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
Defendant
Wanda Nicks
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANDA NICKS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT

AUTHORITY,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-04146 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

Pro se plaintiff Wanda Nicks, filed this action against her employer, the Central

Contra Costa Transit Authority (“CCCTA”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability

and gender, harassment, retaliation, and breach of company policy. The defendant now

moves to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court GRANTS defendant’s

motion with leave to amend, thereby VACATING the hearing scheduled for February 29,

2008. 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint reads as a series of jumbled and incoherent

events. To the extent that the Court can discern the facts, it appears that plaintiff alleges that

the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her disability and gender. Plaintiff

filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on July 12,

2007 for gender and disability discrimination, and filed an additional charge for retaliation on

Case 3:07-cv-04146-CRB Document 59 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

August 28, 2007. Nonetheless, it is not altogether clear what conduct the plaintiff believes to

be actionable discrimination. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted if

the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although a pro se litigant

is entitled to “great leeway” when the court construes the pleadings, the pleadings must

nonetheless “meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it

is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th

Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to adequately put forth allegations

informing the defendant of what it has done wrong. Indeed, the Court itself cannot identify

with confidence any actionable discrimination or retaliation in the permissible time period. 

Because pro se complaints may be dismissed without leave to amend “only if it is absolutely

clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment,” Schucker v.

Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988), the defendant’s motion to dismiss is

granted without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 22, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04146-CRB Document 59 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 2