Opinion ID: 168164
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaint and Amended Complaint

Text: 2 On February 17, 2004, Mr. Moya filed the present civil rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three officials of the New Mexico State Fair (Fair), in their individual capacities. 1 The complaint alleged that in April 2003 Mr. Moya was involuntarily separated from his job as a plumber for the Fair due to an on-the-job injury. That injury, in turn, allegedly occurred as a direct and proximate result of hostile work conditions to which Defendants deliberately and systematically exposed [Mr. Moya] . . . in retribution and retaliation for [Mr. Moya's] having spoken out on issues of public concern. The public issues on which Mr. Moya allegedly spoke out included: the Fair's illegal use of Mr. Moya's plumber's license to cover work done by unlicensed personnel; the illegal exploitation of Fair employees; violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by Fair employees; violation of the Families and Medical Leave Act by the Fair; and supervision by unqualified personnel at the Fair. Mr. Moya's complaint sought both compensatory and punitive damages. 3 In response to the complaint, Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement, 2 arguing that it was unclear (1) what Mr. Moya claimed as an adverse employment action, (2) how the timing of Mr. Moya's speech related to the timing of the alleged adverse action, and (3) what actions were taken by each of the three Defendants. The district court granted Defendants' motion on all three grounds and allowed Mr. Moya two weeks to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies. 4 Mr. Moya timely filed an amended complaint attempting to address the district court's concerns. First, the amended complaint explained that the adverse employment action taken against Mr. Moya was the creation of a hostile work environment. 3 As for the district court's timing concern, the amended complaint stated simply that [t]he hostile work environment created by the Defendants for the Plaintiff followed in close temporal proximity his exercise of First Amendment protected activity. Finally, the amended complaint included three long paragraphs — one for each Defendant — describing in very general terms each Defendant's challenged actions. These alleged actions consisted mainly of (1) ignoring reports and complaints made by Mr. Moya and (2) creating and facilitating the violations against which he allegedly spoke out.