Williams v. Aetna Inc., 1:21-cv-00321-NONE-EPG (PS)
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:21-cv-00321-NONE-EPG (PS),1:21-cv-00321-NONE-EPG (PS) |
| Parties | PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
SCREENING ORDER
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 3, 2021, (ECF No. 1), which the Court screened and found failed to state any claims on March 23, 2021, (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint ("FAC") on April 9, 2021. (ECF No. 5). The FAC, which is now before the Court for screening, brings claims against his former employer and supervisors. The Court finds that the Complaint fails to state any cognizable claims. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends dismissing the FAC, without further leave to amend.
Plaintiff may file objections to these findings and recommendations within fourteen days of the date of service of this order.
///
As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint is required to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff's legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) ().
The Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint on March 23, 2021. (ECF No. 4). The Court found that the complaint was not a short and plain statement of Plaintiff's claims, and it therefore violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Id. at 5-7). The Court noted that Plaintiff's complaint was a long narrative, "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant." (Id. at 6) (quoting McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)). The deficiencies the Court noted, for instance, included that the complaint was a long narrative, contained "several pages of definitions and legal arguments interspersed with factual allegations," had large portions that were "single-spaced and written in a small font," and contained generalgrievances about income withholding. (Id.). The Court proceeded to provide legal standards for section 1983 and employment discrimination claims and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. Any amended complaint was limited to 15 pages, including exhibits, and had to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 130(c), which largely concern formatting and readability of complaints.
The FAC complies with the Court's limitations on Plaintiff's amended complaint. It is thirteen pages long. It is appropriately spaced and numbered, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) and Local Rule 130(c). The FAC begins with a caption, statements on jurisdiction and venue and the parties. A chronological statement of facts begins at the bottom of page two and runs through part of page four. Pages four through seven are mostly a list of legal principles. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that (ECF No. 5 at 4). Later, Plaintiff states that "Defendant(s) actions through the process of income withholdings are defamatory, fraudulent, negligent, an intentional infliction of emotional distress; while subjecting Plaintiff to peonage, and unjust enrichment, while acting under color of law." (Id. at 7). Plaintiff proceeds to list nine counts: discrimination, harassment, retaliation, defamation, fraud, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, peonage, and unjust enrichment. (Id. at 7-12). The FAC concludes with a request for damages, a demand for a jury trial, and the signature and fingerprint of Plaintiff. (Id. at 12-13).
The FAC alleges as follows:
Plaintiff began working for Defendants Aetna Inc., Jacqueline Garnett and Kimberly Burns as a Health Concierge in August 2018. Defendant Burns is a Customer Service Manager. Defendant Garnett is a Customer Service Supervisor.
/// On September 1, 2018, child support representatives of Solano, Fresno County Department of Child Support Services claimed to be a judge or issuing official pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 912 and sent income withholding orders to Defendants. These orders did not have a wet signature from a judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 505. These orders claimed a false debt owed; were false contracts under 7 U.S.C. § 6(b); were false, deceptive, and misleading statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e); and constituted debt collection by unfair and unconscionable means pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f). Defendants presented the false claims to Plaintiff as a fact and then performed income withholding against Plaintiff's earnings.
In September 2018, Defendants began charging Plaintiff a $1.50 administrative fee with every withholding. That same month, Plaintiff began making contact with Solano, Fresno County Department of Child Support Services to resolve the matters.
In early 2019, Defendants Burns and Garnett discriminated, harassed and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. During a meeting between Defendants and Plaintiff, Defendant Burns told Plaintiff "I'm not so sure you're accustomed to working in a structured environment." Plaintiff was offended by that statement. Defendant Garnett then took notice and sarcastically asked, "Awww ... Does he need someone to hold his hand?"
In mid-2019, Defendant Garnett emailed Plaintiff, instructing him to complete multiple training courses. Plaintiff requested replacement courses and Defendant Garnett told him no.
In early 2019, Plaintiff requested assistance from Defendants with work duties via instant messenger. Defendant Burns told Plaintiff to "Go find a supervisor."
In May 2019, Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Action Plan by Defendant Garnett. During weekly meetings about the plan, Plaintiff was informed only of whether certain metrics were met or not and department standards.
In August 2019, Defendant Garnett told Plaintiff that an unnamed employee stated that Plaintiff did not like her and had used derogatory language in reference to Defendant Garnett. Defendant Garnett reported this information to company security and to Defendant Aetna's human resources. Defendant Garnett did not afford Plaintiff with due process to prove the statements were false.
On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff was evicted because Plaintiff could not afford to pay for living expenses after the income withholding. From that date through October 4, 2019, Plaintiff notified Defendants of Plaintiff's need for a leave due to emotional distress via the Aetna National Accounts Attendance Line. On October 3, 2019, Defendant Garnett called Plaintiff to inform him of possible termination. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff sent a complaint to Defendants about his complaints against Defendants Burns and Garnett, his suffering from the income withholdings, and the lack of due process. In November 2019, Plaintiff was involuntarily terminated as an Aetna employee.
Plaintiff is an African American man. He was qualified for his position of Health Concierge.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....
42 U.S.C. § 1983. "[Section] 1983 'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'" Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial