United States District Court, E.D. California
Dana D. Hudson, Plaintiff, Pro se, Ceres, CA.
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED WITH 30 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1)
Sheila K. Oberto, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On November 24, 2014, Plaintiff Dana Hudson D. (" Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action against Defendant Katherine L. Archeuleta, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, apparently in her official capacity (" Defendant"). (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend.
II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
From what the Court can discern from Plaintiff's complaint, which is neither organized nor clear, Plaintiff began working for the United States Postal Service on October 7, 1977, as a " LSM Machine Operator" and as a " Mail Carrier" beginning in 1983. (Doc. 1, 2.) In the course of her duties as a mail carrier, Plaintiff alleges that she sustained injuries to her right knee on August 5, 1988, and to her left knee on October 20, 1993. (Doc. 1, 2.)
Plaintiff was placed " on the Office of Workers' Compensation rolls" at some point, and her benefits were terminated in October of 2003 as the result of " discrimination and interferences" " in violation of [the] Rehabilitation Act[.]" (Doc. 1, 2.) Plaintiff claims she requested and was granted a hearing to review the termination of her Workers' Compensation benefits, and that her " rights to due process were violated when [she] received a copy of the transcript and requested correction and/or amendment." (Doc. 1, 2.) It is unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant or another entity is responsible for the termination of her Workers' Compensation Benefits or for the issue regarding correction of the hearing transcript.
Plaintiff further alleges that " [a]s further disparate treatment without notification [she] was denied the right to due process and terminated on May 9, 2008 without ever [being returned] to work with reasonable accommodations in violation of the Rehabilitation Act[.]" (Doc. 1, 3.) It is unclear how Defendant or another entity is responsible for not returning her to work with reasonable accommodations. There are no facts explaining Defendant's conduct, and what accommodation was not provided.
Plaintiff applied for " disability retirement" with the Defendant on August 12, 2010, and then again in February 2013. (Doc. 1, 2-3.) She alleges that she contacted the Defendant directly on April 9, 2013, " to inquire about retirement as detriment and disadvantage" and was told she should " [g]et another government job" to become eligible for disability retirement. (Doc. 1, 4.) On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff received a denial letter from Defendant denying her disability retirement because she " will not become 62 years of age until January 28, 2020, [and therefore does] not meet the age requirements for a deferred retirement annuity." (Doc. 1, 4.) Plaintiff appealed the denial of disability retirement benefits to the Merit System Protection Board (" MSPB") on January 3, 2014, and her appeal was denied on March 6, 2014. (Doc. 1, 4.)
Plaintiff alleges that in denying her request for disability retirement, the Defendant " continuously discriminated" against her based on her " disabilities, " and denied Plaintiff " equal opportunity as disparate treatment" by refusing to grant her disability retirement benefits despite her having " 28 years and 7 months of creditable service." (Doc. 1, 2, 4.) Plaintiff contests the denial of disability retirement benefits, as the MPSB's denial letter " did not address the issues and/or allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act[.]" (Doc. 1, 4.)
Plaintiff alleges that she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on July 16, 2014, and received a letter on October 30, 2014, informing her that " the MSPB did not address the issues and/or allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...therefore EEOC does not have jurisdiction [and she] ( sic ) can file a civil action in district court." (Doc. 1, 4-5.) It is unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff received an actual " right-to-sue" letter from the EEOC, as one is not attached as an exhibit to the complaint.
Plaintiff has not worked since December 26, 1999, as a result of her " worn out knee replacement and surgeries, " and has been deemed totally and/or permanently disabled since May 28, 2010, when she was granted Social Security Disability benefits. (Doc. 1, 2-3.) Plaintiff has had " numerous surgeries to [her] right knee including an infection and chronic pain several of the surgeries required knee replacements May 2010, June 2010, July 2010, May 2003, October 2002, May 2002, January 2001, June 1990, 1979 and 1972 ( sic )" and had additional surgeries in May and August of 2013 " due to infection and botched and/or failed knee replacement." (Doc. 1, 2, 4.) Plaintiff alleges " civil rights violations were committed against [her] including botched and/or failed knee replacements and attempt ( sic ) to have [her] right leg amputated." (Doc. 1, 5.)
Plaintiff alleges that those " civil rights violations were based on (R) African American, (S) Female (A) 50 years old (G) Female (R) Baptist and (D) Diagnosed and accepted as right and left knee Patellofemoral Chondromalacia and Arthritis Syndrome, Asthma and Plantar
Facilities both feet." (Doc. 1, 5.) Plaintiff also contends that " it is alleged with false accusations [she] went dancing and camping that is how [she] sustained [her] job related injuries." (Doc. 1, 5.) It is unclear from the complaint whether Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant or another entity is responsible for these violations and allegations. There are no facts alleging actions attributable to Defendant, or how Defendant allegedly harmed her.
Plaintiff requests the Court to reinstate her Workers' Compensation benefits, as " if the discrimination had not occurred with creditable service 36 years and 11 months and disability retirement." (Doc. 1, 6.) She also requests both " front pay for unlawful termination" and " back pay in order to make whole for all terms and conditions of employment with monetary value[, ]" as well as compensatory damages and punitive damages " for the harm suffered botched and failed knee replacements, sustain plantar
facilities and wrong doing of unlawful termination ( sic )." (Doc. 1, 6.) She asks the Court to appoint an attorney, with fees and costs included in the relief requested. ...