Opinion ID: 2804186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Proposed Amended Complaint

Text: Bascom Palmer, the Trust, and the individual defendants all filed motions to dismiss Pouyeh’s Third Amended Complaint. Thereafter, Pouyeh filed a motion to amend his complaint further and to join additional defendants. He attached to his motion a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending some of Pouyeh’s claims be dismissed. The magistrate judge recommended granting Bascom Palmer’s motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 6, because (1) the University, not Bascom Palmer, was the proper defendant; and (2) under the BAA, the University did not assert sufficient control over the residency program to be Pouyeh’s prospective employer. The magistrate judge then addressed the Trust’s motion to dismiss. At the outset, she explained, although Pouyeh purported to raise a claim of Title VI education discrimination in Count 1, it was more correctly construed as a claim of employment discrimination, because residents were employees, not students, under the BAA. The magistrate judge recommended Count 1 be dismissed with 6 Case: 14-13704 Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Page: 7 of 23 prejudice for failure to allege the Trust received federal funding for the primary purpose of employment. She recommended the Trust’s motion be denied regarding the Title VII and FCRA claims in Counts 2, 4, and 6. She further recommended the Trust’s motion be granted concerning the § 1981 claims in Counts 3 and 5. The magistrate judge also recommended the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted with respect to the § 1981 and FCRA claims in Counts 5 and 6. She explained the claim of FCRA discrimination in obtaining a medical license in Count 6 was not cognizable against individuals. She recommended the individual defendants’ motion be denied with respect to the §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims in Counts 7 through 9. The magistrate judge further recommended Pouyeh’s request to file his proposed Fourth Amended Complaint be denied, because it failed to comport with federal and local rules of procedure, but he should be given one final opportunity to file an amended complaint. Over Pouyeh’s objections, the district judge adopted the R&R in part, dismissed his Third Amended Complaint with prejudice but denied him leave to file another amended complaint. The judge determined the Third Amended Complaint failed to state a claim against Bascom Palmer, because Bascom Palmer was not Pouyeh’s prospective employer under the BAA. The judge adopted the recommendation of the R&R that Count 1 be dismissed with prejudice regarding 7 Case: 14-13704 Date Filed: 05/28/2015 Page: 8 of 23 the Trust, and Counts 5 and 6 be dismissed with prejudice regarding the individual defendants. Concerning the remaining claims, the judge determined Pouyeh’s Third Amended Complaint failed to provide sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for discrimination.