Davis v. Bellsouth Telecomms.
Decision Date | 07 June 2012 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 11-722-FJP-SCR |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Parties | DANYELL M. DAVIS v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ AT&T SOUTHEAST |
DANYELL M. DAVIS
v.
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS/ AT&T SOUTHEAST
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 11-722-FJP-SCR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Date: June 7, 2012
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 by Defendant Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC ("Bellsouth"). Plaintiff Danyell Davis ("Plaintiff" or "Davis") has filed an opposition to the motion.2 For the reasons which follow, the motion to dismiss is granted.
Plaintiff, who is pro se, has filed this lawsuit against her former employer Bellsouth, alleging claims of race discrimination, retaliation, disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, violation of the Louisiana Whistleblower statute LA R.S. 23:967, violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a tort claim under Louisiana Civil Code article 2316.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal
Page 2
Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6) is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.3 A district court cannot dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted "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.'"4 In reviewing a Rule 12(b) (6) motion, the Court must accept all we 11-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.5 In ruling on such a motion, the Court cannot look beyond the face of the pleadings.6 The ultimate question in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the complaint states a valid cause of action when it is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in favor of the plaintiff.7 A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal.8
Dismissal is warranted if a plaintiff has (1) been given the
Page 3
opportunity to plead his best case, (2) made specific and detailed allegations constituting his best case, and (3) still fails to state a claim.9
Normally, consideration of a 12(b) (6) motion focuses solely on the allegations in the complaint. However, introduction of matters of public record and entertainment of oral argument is permissible.10 Furthermore, in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may permissibly refer to matters of public record.11 "When deciding a Rule 12(b) (6) motion, the Court will not consider matters outside the pleadings, except those matters of which the Court takes judicial notice."12
Page 4
B. State Law Claims
Pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. Therefore, plaintiff's state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
C. Section 1983 Claim
Defendant argues, and Plaintiff concedes in her opposition, that the defendant is a private actor, not a state actor acting "under color of law." The law is clear that state action is a prerequisite for bringing a cause of action under Section 1983.13 This claim is dismissed with prejudice.
D. Title VII Claims
Plaintiff has alleged various claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq.14 However, defendant correctly contends plaintiff has failed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies, which is required before seeking judicial relief.15 Further, plaintiff failed to allege or attach as an exhibit a right to sue letter by the EEOC, rendering it impossible for the defendant or the Court to ascertain the timeliness of plaintiffs claims.
Page 5
Even if plaintiff had satisfied the exhaustion requirements, her complaint fails to set forth claims upon which relief may be granted under federal law. Plaintiff alleges discrimination, but fails to allege that she was qualified for her job, any adverse employment action taken against her based on race or disability, or whether others treated outside her protected class were treated differently. Plaintiff alleges a hostile work environment, but fails to identify unwelcome conduct, whether such conduct was severe or pervasive, how the conduct affected the terms or conditions of plaintiff's employment, or that the conduct occurred because of her race and/or disability....
To continue reading
Request your trial