United States District Court, N.D. California
July 6, 2015
CYNTHIA D. DAVIS-KNOTTS, Plaintiff,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
On May 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court explained that without any details showing: (1) any of the defendants' alleged actions were adverse employment actions taken because of the plaintiff's disability; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for hire in a position but was rejected in favor of a younger candidate of equal or lesser qualifications; or (3) the defendants refused to hire the plaintiff on the basis of genetic information or otherwise violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the complaint failed to state a claim. The Court offered the plaintiff one final chance to amend her complaint to include sufficient facts to show "a plausible entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559 (2007).
On June 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint, asserting claims against the State of California and the State Compensation Insurance Fund for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. In the Third Amended Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she left her position as a Key Data Operator with the State Compensation Insurance Fund following a work-related injury. The plaintiff further alleges that "after my work related injury I continued to return and seeking [ sic ] reinstatement" over a 15-year period, but was "[n]ever hired or reinstated. State of California Personnel Board agency misinformation given about my work history.... Harmful/Long term affect [ sic ] of this misinformation given about me."
The most specific allegation in the complaint is that sometime in 2012 the plaintiff called Karen Shu seeking a position with the Public Utilities Commission, and that the supervisor at the Public Utilities Commission subsequently called the plaintiff and informed her that she did not qualify for the position. The complaint states that "[a]ge was the motivating factor, " but includes no facts to support this conclusion.
On June 22, 2015, the plaintiff filed a document containing further information in support of her claim. (Docket No. 23.) This document contains additional details about the positions plaintiff sought and various individuals she spoke with while pursuing employment. But it provides no facts suggesting that the defendants chose not to rehire the plaintiff (or took any other adverse action against her) because of her age, disability, or genetic information.
As the Court explained in its April 8, 2015 order dismissing the plaintiff's initial complaint, while a complaint does not need to provide "detailed factual allegations, " it does require the plaintiff to provide "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). This means that a complaint must offer more than labels and conclusions. A complaint will not state a claim if it provides only "naked assertion[s]' devoid of further factual enhancement.'" Id.
The Third Amended Complaint does not provide any of the details the Court explained were necessary in order for the plaintiff to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.