Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00332-10/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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE 

DENIED

ECF NO. 29

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff Timothy Luckey filed a motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 29.) The motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for findings and 

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment be denied.

I.

BACKGROUND

The operative complaint in this action is the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff 

on September 26, 2013. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. 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 because Plaintiff was subjected to differential 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 30 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 4
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

treatment based upon his race (black) and his sex (male).

Plaintiff alleges that he was employed at Crestwood Elementary School within VUSD. 

Plaintiff contends that he was segregated and isolated from other staff and students by Jim 

Sullivan, the principal at Crestwood Elementary School and such treatment was based on 

Plaintiff’s race and sex. Plaintiff complained to Jim Sullivan and to human resources about the 

differential treatment, but was reprimanded for his complaints. Plaintiff was given reduced work 

hours and eventually terminated, allegedly because Plaintiff threatened to file an EEOC 

complaint regarding the mistreatment.

On October 7, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and found 

that it stated a cognizable claim for retaliation under Title VII. (ECF No. 13.) On January 10, 

2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied on April 11, 2014. (ECF 

Nos. 16, 23.) On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present motion for summary judgment now 

before the Court. (ECF No. 29.)

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[a] party may move for summary judgment ... 

if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Summary judgment must be entered “against a party 

who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 

party’s case...” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] party seeking summary 

judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its 

motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the 

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id.

III.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment appears to be premature. The schedule 

conference in this matter has not yet occurred, discovery has not yet been scheduled and, to the 

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 30 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Court’s knowledge, the parties have not yet exchanged initial disclosures under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).

Moreover, analyzing the substance of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

stated claims under Title VII for discrimination on the basis of race and sex as well as for 

retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment does 

not demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute regarding whether Plaintiff’s termination and 

adverse treatment was motivated by Defendant’s discriminatory or retaliatory animus. In fact, 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment acknowledges that Plaintiff received a negative 

evaluation from Defendant, which supports the inference that Plaintiff’s termination was not 

motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment also attempts to rely on the fact that Defendant 

has “failed to acknowledge” a number of facts listed throughout the motion. Whether a 

Defendant “acknowledges” a particular fact is immaterial to the issue of whether or not that 

particular fact is disputed. In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate that the facts are not in dispute and those undisputed facts show that Plaintiff is 

entitled to judgment in his favor. In other words, the evidence must unequivocally support 

Plaintiff’s version of the facts and no reasonable fact finder would find any material fact in 

Defendant’s favor. Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate that the facts are not in dispute, as it 

is facially evident that there is a dispute regarding whether Defendant’s actions were motivated 

by Plaintiff’s race, sex or EEOC complaint, or whether Defendant’s actions were motivated by 

Plaintiff’s poor work performance.

Plaintiff also discusses a number of requests for admission that Defendant apparently sent 

to Plaintiff. This discussion has no readily apparent relevance to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment. Plaintiff is advised that discovery, as a general matter, occurs without court 

supervision. Accordingly, whether or not Plaintiff admits or refuses to admit the facts stated in 

the requests for admission is an issue Plaintiff can address in his response to Defendant’s 

discovery request, not in a motion to the Court.

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 30 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 4
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

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary 

judgment.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement 

to summary judgment on any of his claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate 

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB Document 30 Filed 05/23/14 Page 4 of 4