Oliver v. N.Y. State Police
| Decision Date | 05 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 1:18-CV-00732 EAW,1:17-CV-01157 EAW |
| Parties | JEAN OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Pro se plaintiff Jean Oliver ("Plaintiff") is a former employee of the New York State Police (the "NYSP"). Plaintiff has filed numerous actions related to her former employment in this Court, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and the New York State courts. Two such actions (Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-01157 (hereinafter the "2017 Action") and Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-00732 (hereinafter the "2018 Action")) are currently pending in this Court. The NYSP is a defendant in both the 2017 and 2018 Actions. The other defendants in the 2017 Action (referred to collectively with the NYSP as the "2017 Defendants") are eight high-level employees of the NYSP, sued in their individual and official capacities. (2017 Action, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 8-15). The other defendants in the 2018 Action (referred to collectively with the NYSP as the "2018 Defendants") are the New York State Attorney General (the "NYAG"), the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (the "PERB"), and the New York State Governor's Office of Employee Relations (the "GOEC"). (2018 Action, Dkt. 1 at 1).
Currently before the Court are three motions filed in the 2017 Action and four motions filed in the 2018 Action. In particular, in the 2017 Action, Plaintiff has filed a motion for the costs of service (2017 Action, Dkt. 2) and a motion for transfer to the Northern District of New York (id., Dkt. 16), while the 2017 Defendants have moved for dismissal and for a more definite statement (id., Dkt. 6). In the 2018 Action, the 2018 Defendants have moved for dismissal and for a more definite statement (2018 Action, Dkt. 2), and Plaintiff has filed a cross-motion to compel (id., Dkt. 10), a motion for a conference (id., Dkt. 12), and a motion for transfer to the Northern District of New York (id., Dkt. 13). For the reasons discussed below, these motions are resolved as follows: (1) Plaintiff's motion for costs (2017 Action, Dkt. 2) is denied; (2) the 2017 Defendants' motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement (id., Dkt. 6) is denied as to the request for dismissal but granted as to the request for a more definite statement; (3) the 2018 Defendants' motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement (2018 Action, Dkt. 2) is granted as to the request for dismissal and denied as moot as to the request for a more definite statement; (4) Plaintiff's cross-motion to compel the 2018 Defendants to answer her Complaint (id., Dkt. 10) is denied; (5) Plaintiff's motion to transfer the 2017 Action to the Northern District of New York (2017 action, Dkt. 16) is granted; (6) Plaintiff's motion to transfer the 2018 Action to the Northern District of New York (2018 Action, Dkt. 13) is denied as moot; and (7) Plaintiff's letter motion for a conference in the 2018 Action (id., Dkt. 12) is denied as moot.
Plaintiff began working for the NYSP in 1997, and originally spent 7 years as a member of the road patrol. (2017 Action, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 26-27).1 In 2005, Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of investigator and assigned to the Batavia Downs Video Lottery Unit. (Id. at ¶ 28). Plaintiff remained with the Batavia Downs Video Lottery Unit until 2008, when she was reassigned to the Community Narcotics Enforcement Team West ("CNET West"). (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 28).
While she was assigned to CNET West, Plaintiff's supervisor was non-defendant Paul Kelly. (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 29). On October 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed an informal complaint of gender discrimination, harassment, and misconduct by Kelly with the NYSP Office of Human Resources. (Id. at ¶ 16). Plaintiff claims that she was retaliated against as a result of filing this complaint. (Id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff filed a formal charge of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") on September 25, 2014, which was also simultaneously filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (the "NYSDHR"). (Id. at ¶ 19). On January 29, 2015, the EEOC issued a determination finding probable cause that gender discrimination and retaliation had occurred. (Id.). The EEOC further notified Plaintiff of her right to sue. (Id.).
On April 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in the Northern District of New York related to the alleged discrimination and retaliation. Oliver v. New York State Police,Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00444, Dkt. 1 (N.D.N.Y. April 14, 2015) (hereinafter the "NDNY Action"). The NDNY Action remains pending.
Plaintiff filed a second EEOC charge on May 20, 2015, alleging continued retaliation. (2017 Action, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 21). On May 22, 2015, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter and a letter informing Plaintiff that her complaints were subsumed by her initial EEOC charge and addressed in the NDNY Action. (Id.).
On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff dual-filed a complaint with the EEOC and the NYSDHR alleging gender discrimination, harassment, disability discrimination, military status discrimination2, and retaliation. (Id. at ¶ 22). The NYSDHR dismissed the complaint for administrative convenience on September 23, 2015. (Id.). On October 23, 2015, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter. (Id.).
Temporarily represented by counsel, Plaintiff commenced a lawsuit in this Court on January 5, 2016. Oliver v. New York State Police, et al., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00011 EAW, Dkt. 1 (W.D.N.Y. January 5, 2016) (hereinafter the "2016 Action"). The 2016 Action was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff on December 8, 2016. Id., Dkt. 15.
On September 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the NYSDHR alleging retaliation. (2017 Action, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 25). Plaintiff alleges that the NYSDHR refused to process this complaint. (Id.).
The 2017 Action was commenced on November 9, 2017. (Id., Dkt. 1). In the 2017 Action, Plaintiff, acting pro se, alleges that the 2017 Defendants improperly handled theinvestigations into her discrimination and retaliation complaints, wrongfully terminated Plaintiff, falsified submissions in a proceeding Plaintiff commenced in New York State Court, and otherwise retaliated against Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-58). Plaintiff asserts claims of gender discrimination, retaliation, conspiracy to violate her civil rights, military status discrimination, and violations of the New York Civil Service and Labor Laws. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-79).
On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for the costs of service in the 2017 Action. (Id., Dkt. 2). In particular, Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d), she requested that the 2017 Defendants waive service of a summons and they failed to do so, entitling Plaintiff to recover the expenses incurred in making such service. (2017 Action, Dkt. 2 at 1-2). The 2017 Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's motion for costs on January 17, 2018 (id., Dkt. 8), and Plaintiff filed a reply on January 22, 2018 (id, Dkt. 11).
On January 10, 2018, the 2017 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, and insufficient service of process, or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. (Id., Dkt. 6). In particular, the 2017 Defendants contend that the summonses served upon them in this case are defective, and that the Court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over them. (Id., Dkt. 6-1 at 6-8). The 2017 Defendants further argue that Plaintiff's Complaint is "an improper shotgun pleading" because it fails to link any specific factual allegations to her asserted causes of action, and that a more definite statement of Plaintiff's claims is therefore required. (Id. at 8-10). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the 2017 Defendants' motion to dismisson January 19, 2018 (2017 Action, Dkt. 9), and the 2017 Defendants filed a reply on February 14, 2018 (id., Dkt. 13).
Plaintiff, acting pro se, commenced the 2018 Action on July 2, 2018. (2018 Action, Dkt. 1). Plaintiff alleges that the 2018 Defendants violated the New York Civil Service Law at various administrative hearings and failed to investigate her claims of discrimination and retaliation. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9, 20-25). Plaintiff further alleges that the 2018 Defendants submitted false documentation and engaged in litigation misconduct in an action her former counsel commenced in New York State Court. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-19). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff purports to assert claims of gender discrimination, retaliation, conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights, and violations of state law. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-45).
The 2018 Defendants moved for dismissal or for a more definite statement on July 23, 2018. (2018 Action, Dkt. 2). In particular, the 2018 Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims against them are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, are improperly duplicative of her prior lawsuits, and are time barred. (Id., Dkt. 2-1 at 1-2). The 2018 Defendants further argue in the alternative that Plaintiff's Complaint is "an improper shotgun pleading" and seek a more definite statement. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff filed a response and a "cross-motion to compel Defendants to answer the charges" on August 20, 2018. (2018 Action, Dkt. 10). The 2018 Defendants filed a reply on September 4, 2018. (Id., Dkt. 11).
On September 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter motion in the 2018 Action requesting that the Court schedule a conference to "address the ongoing violations of [her] 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law and the retaliation[she] continue[s] to be subjected to for exercising [her] rights under Title VII." (Id., Dkt. 12 at 6). The next day, Plaintiff filed a motion for transfer to the Northern District of New York in both the 2017 and 2018 Actions. (2017 Action, Dkt. 16; 2018 Action, Dkt. 13...
To continue reading
Request your trial