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.

Luckey v. Visalia Unified School District

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 23, 2014

TIMOTHY LUCKEY, Plaintiff,
v.
VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED ECF NO. 29

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

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 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 Court's knowledge, the parties have not yet exchanged ...


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.