Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Imelda Caputi v. Fresno County Superior Court

October 14, 2011

IMELDA CAPUTI
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 1)

Screening Order

Plaintiff Imelda Caputi, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint on September 19, 2011, alleging civil rights claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)), The Americans with Disabilities Act, The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and The Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Plaintiff generally alleges "retaliation, harassment, etc." This matter has been referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

I. Screening Requirement

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both the court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992). Accordingly, this Court screens all complaints filed by plaintiffs in propria persona to ensure that the action is not frivolous or malicious, that the actions states a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the complaint does not seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

According to the complaint and its appended documents, Defendant employed Plaintiff as an interpreter from 1980 until April 19, 2010, when Plaintiff became ill. Because of her serious health or medical condition, Plaintiff then took a leave of absence pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act. Plaintiff exhausted all leave available under those acts on July 12, 2010. She then contacted Defendant to request a medical leave of absence of unspecified duration.

In a letter dated September 24, 2010, Senior Human Resources Analyst Michelle Ramos outlined events relevant to Plaintiff's request for a medical leave of absence. Doc. 1 at 4-5. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's July request, Defendant advised Plaintiff that she would need to file a current physician statement setting forth the reason and expected duration of her absence from work. In a note received July 6, 2010, Michael Kruger, D.O., wrote to Defendant: "Ms. Caputi was in our office today for cardiovascular testing. She will return for test results and further recommendation on 7/30/10." In a note received July 7, 2010, nurse practitioner Rafael Camarena, N.P., of the office of internist Patrick Golden, M.D., wrote: "Please excuse from work 5/1/11. Unable to return due to [undecipherable] current plan of needs to be modified." Defendant deemed these notes insufficient to consider Plaintiff's request for a continued leave of absence. Accordingly, Plaintiff authorized Defendant to contact her treating physicians to clarify the previously submitted notes and to assess her leave request.

In a note received August 27, 2010, Camarena wrote: "Mrs. Caputi is medically disabled and unable to return to work--indefinite. Pt. has extensive/complex medical problems that need to be controlled." Defendant interpreted this note as indicating that Plaintiff was permanently unable to return to work. Accordingly, Ramos informed Plaintiff that Defendant would begin the process of medical separation on October 12, 2010.

The California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) closed Plaintiff's case and issued its right-to-sue notice on January 24, 2011.

On July 6, 2011, the EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights, indicating that: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.

Doc. 1 at 2.

The notice specified that Plaintiff had ninety days to file suit. On July 19, 2011, the EEOC ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.