The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Docs. 1, 5 and 7)
On January 7, 2011, Plaintiffs April Premo Williams, filed a complaint alleging "violations of Title I and Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, violations of Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, *fn1 violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, violations of the State of California Workers' Compensation and Labor Laws, Breach of Contract, Breach of Expressed Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Fair Dealings, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm." (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has named Home Depot Inc., the Courts of the State of California, and Does one through ten as defendants. *fn2 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Id.
Plaintiff has also filed two Motions to Stay on February 28, and April 5, 2011 in which she requests that this Court stay the other Courts' proceedings based on the filing of the instant complaint. (Docs. 5 and 7).
On May 18, 2011, Plaintiff also filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (Doc. 9). The FAC is identical to the initial complaint filed except that Plaintiff names eight additional defendants in the caption: 1) the Worker's Compensation Board of the State of California; 2) the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California; 3) Shavonda Early, DWC Disabilities Coordinator; 4) Judge David Bovett; 5) Judge Timothy Salter; 6) Judge Vincent Misent; 7) the Department of Social Services of the State of California; and 8) the Superior Court of the State of California County of Stanislaus.
A review of the FAC reveals that it was improperly filed and will be STRICKEN. As noted above, the only difference between the complaint and the FAC are the additional defendants named in the caption of the pleading. The body of the complaint does not link any of the newly named defendants to any alleged unlawful activity in any of the causes action. Therefore, this Court is unable to ascertain what conduct the newly added defendants allegedly engaged in, or how their conduct relates to any of the causes of actions. Moreover, the Court did not give Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. *fn3
As such, the governing pleading in this case is the complaint filed on January 7, 2011. Finally, as outlined in more detail below, this Court will not exercise its jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, an amendment would be futile.
Plaintiff's complaint is confusing, however, it appears that she is contesting a Worker's Compensation proceeding. According to the complaint, Plaintiff suffers from epilepsy, diabetes, Hashimoto Thyroiditis, melanoma, and learning disabilities including mental retardation in the areas of "visual perception, auditory recall, comprehension of abstract concepts of numbers, and coordination of visual and motor dexterity." (Doc. 1 at pg. 2). Plaintiff contends she was injured on April 15, 2003, while she was employed at Home Depot. At this time, she allegedly fell while throwing items into the trash compactor which resulted in injuries to her left shoulder, knee, neck, and back. (Doc. 1 at pg. 4).
Plaintiff subsequently filed a Worker's Compensation claim to obtain remediation for her injuries. She contends that during this proceeding, Home Depot requested that she see its doctors rather than Plaintiff's own doctor. (Doc. 1 at pg. 4). Plaintiff also contends that Home Depot agreed to pay for two surgeries and other medical services but refused to pay for the services rendered as agreed upon. (Doc. 1 at pgs. 4-5). Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board and requested a hearing for a "breach of contract" by Home Depot.
Id . She also requested that the hearing be completed in writing due to her disability. As of the date of the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff had not received notification that her request for a written hearing was granted and she therefore, presumes it was denied. (Doc. 1 at pg. 5).
As a result of the above, Plaintiff has alleged causes of action for "violations of Title I and Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, violations of Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, violations of the State of California Workers' Compensation and Labor Laws, Breach of Contract, Breach of Expressed Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Fair Dealings, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm." (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is seeking inter alia , declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees.
In addition to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed two Motions for Stay wherein she indicates that she has filed a Writ of Mandate in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. *fn4 In the motions, Plaintiff requests that this Court stay the proceedings at the Stanislaus Superior Court, as well as before the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board, because she has made requests that the ...