Baker v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 30 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 00-0786(RMU).,Civ.A. 00-0786(RMU). |
| Citation | 150 F.Supp.2d 17 |
| Parties | Essie J. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. William J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Essie J. Baker, Capitol Height, MD, Pro se.
Laurie Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
This matter comes before the court on the defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On September 15, 1999, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued its final decision dismissing the plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff, Essie J. Baker, now brings this action pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. The defendant, William J. Henderson, named in his official capacity as Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service ("the defendant" or "Postal Service") moves to dismiss the case on the ground that the plaintiff did not timely file her complaint. In the alternative, the defendant moves for summary judgment.
After careful consideration of the complaint and the parties' submissions, the court finds that, despite the plaintiff's diligence, she was unable to meet the statutory deadline imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) because of a mix-up by the court clerk's office. Therefore, the court determines that equitable tolling is appropriate, and the court will exercise its equitable powers to toll the 90-day filing period so this action may proceed. Accordingly, the court will deny with prejudice the defendant's 12(b)(6) motion. In addition, the court will deny without prejudice the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant may renew its summary-judgment motion at a later date.
On September 20, 1996, the plaintiff signed a contract with her employer, the United States Postal Service, entitled "Rehabilitation Job Offer." See Compl. at 1. That document reflected the position of "Modified Carrier" at the time the plaintiff signed it. See id. Thereafter, while the plaintiff was recuperating from an on-the-job injury, she requested a copy of the document from her employer. See id. At that time, the plaintiff became aware that the contract had been tampered with, and her job title had been "white-ed out." See id. The contract, as modified, reflected a new job title, "Part Time Flexible Employee" ("PTF"). See id. According to the plaintiff, the change from "modified carrier" to "PTF" amounted to a demotion that negatively affected her career status, leave benefits, holidays, bid assignment and bidding rights. See id.
These events prompted the plaintiff to file a complaint with the EEOC on March 12, 1997. The plaintiff's EEOC complaint alleged discrimination based on her disability (bad back and wrist) as well as retaliation for her prior EEOC activity. According to the final agency decision, an administrative judge issued findings and conclusions without a hearing on June 21, 1999, ultimately dismissing the case. See Compl. at 3. On September 15, 1999, the United States Postal Service mailed a copy of this final agency decision to the plaintiff, and included a notice of right to file a civil action (a "right-to-sue" letter). See id. The plaintiff then filed this action on April 11, 2000.
The defendant moves to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely file her complaint in the United States District Court. See Mot. to Dis. at 1. The plaintiff counters that she lodged her request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") within the filing deadline, but that various mishaps in the clerk's office prevented a timely filing. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 1-2. The defendant concedes that the lodging of a request to proceed IFP tolls the limitations period until the court rules on the plaintiff's request. See Reply at 3; see also Mondy v. Secretary of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C.Cir.1988). According to the defendant's calculations, however, the plaintiff either officially lodged her request for IFP too late (i.e., on January 4, 2000) or neglected to file the complaint within the time remaining after her request for IFP was denied. See id. The plaintiff maintains that she lodged her request for IFP within the limitations period but that the clerk lost her file twice and neglected to notify her when the court denied leave to proceed IFP. She claims that the clerk's mistakes led to the late filing of the complaint. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 1.
Since the plaintiff and defendant do not agree about the date on which the plaintiff lodged her IFP request, the court will take judicial notice of the clerk's "Pro Se Log Report" to help determine the key date.1
On September 15, 1999, the EEOC issued its final agency decision in this case and mailed a notice to the plaintiff. See Compl. at 3. On December 10, 1999, the plaintiff lodged her IFP request with the clerk of this court. See Pro Se Log Report. On January 4, 2000, the plaintiff went to the clerk's office to ask about her IFP application and discovered that the clerk had misplaced the file. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 1.2 On March 7, 2000, the court denied the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP. For some reason, however, the court clerk's office did not send notice of the denial to the plaintiff. See id. at 2. On April 4, 2000, the plaintiff again went to the United States Courthouse and asked about the status of her IFP request. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 2. At that time, the clerk's office found the file, which reflected that the court had denied her IFP request on March 7, 2000. See id. On April 11, 2000, the plaintiff paid the filing fee and initiated this action.
In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court is bound to accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of fact, excluding those that are overbroad and unsupported by specific factual averments. See Pitney Bowes v. United States Postal Service, 27 F.Supp.2d 15, 19 (D.D.C.1998) (Urbina, J.); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Clinton, 880 F.Supp. 1, 7 (D.D.C.1995). Moreover, all reasonable inferences from those factual allegations are to be drawn in the nonmovant's favor. See Judicial Watch, 880 F.Supp. at 7.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not designed to test whether the plaintiff will prevail on the merits. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). As this Circuit has held, the complaint must not be dismissed unless it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." See Chandler v. D.C. Dep't of Corrections, 145 F.3d 1355, 1360 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).
The EEOC mailed its decision to the plaintiff on September 15, 1999. There is a presumption that the plaintiff received the letter three days later, i.e., on September 18, 1999.3 The applicable statutory deadlines for Title VII cases are laid out in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), which provides that "[w]ithin 90 days of receipt of notice of final action taken by a department, agency ... an employee ... may file a civil action." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). In this case, the 90-day limitation period began running on September 18, 1999. That would have given the plaintiff until December 17, 1999 (90 calendar days later) to file her suit in this court. The plaintiff lodged her IFP request on December 10, 1999 (seven days before the limitations period ran), which had the effect of tolling the limitations period until the court denied her IFP request on March 7, 2000. The plaintiff did, therefore, lodge her IFP request within the limitations period.
The court turns next to the question of whether the plaintiff filed the complaint within the time remaining (i.e., seven days) after the court denied her IFP request. The defendant correctly notes that the limitations period resumes running once the court denies the IFP request. See Williams-Guice v. Board of Ed., 45 F.3d 161, 162 (7th Cir.1995); McCall v. United States Marshals Service, 36 F.Supp.2d 3, 5 (D.D.C.1999). In this case, the plaintiff had seven days remaining from March 7, 2000. To preserve her claim, the plaintiff had to pay the filing fee and file her complaint on or before March 14, 2000. Unfortunately, the plaintiff states that she did not receive notice of her IFP denial from the clerk's office until April 4, 2000, well after the deadline to file suit. See Pl.'s Reply at 2.
Crucially, however, once the plaintiff actually learned of the IFP denial, she acted swiftly to file her complaint. Indeed, she filed it within seven days, i.e., on April 11, 2000, from the day she learned the court had denied her IFP request. Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff acted diligently to preserve her claim. The court now considers the plaintiff's request to toll the limitations period.
The Supreme Court has held that late-filed civil actions are not jurisdictionally barred, but are subject to equitable-tolling principles. See Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). Before Irwin, there had been confusion as to whether the doctrine of equitable tolling applied to suits against the government because of sovereign-immunity considerations. The Irwin Court, though, held that "the same rebuttable presumption of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redding v. Dist. of Columbia
...not invoke [equitable tolling] in cases where the plaintiff has failed to act diligently to preserve her claim.” Baker v. Henderson, 150 F.Supp.2d 17, 21–22 (D.D.C.2001), citing Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); see also Snead v. ......
-
Ficken v. Amr Corp.
...the time that the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for reconsideration were pending. Baker v. Henderson, 150 F.Supp.2d 17, 19 (D.D.C.2001) (noting that the defendant conceded that "the lodging of a request to proceed IFP tolls the limitations period until the ......
-
Mack v. WP Co.
...should not invoke the doctrine in cases where the plaintiff has failed to act diligently to preserve [his] claim.” Baker v. Henderson, 150 F.Supp.2d 17, 21–22 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. at 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723). “This is particularly true when the pla......
-
Sierra v. Hayden
...motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." Koutny v. Martin , 530 F.Supp.2d 84, 89 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Baker v. Henderson , 150 F.Supp.2d 17, 19 n.1 (D.D.C. 2001) ). "Thus, courts have taken judicial notice of ... parties' administrative complaints when no party disputes their aut......