Williams v. Hawkeye Community College, No. 06-CV-2093-LRR.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
Writing for the CourtReade
Citation494 F.Supp.2d 1032
PartiesFrancine WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. HAWKEYE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.
Docket NumberNo. 06-CV-2093-LRR.
Decision Date27 June 2007
494 F.Supp.2d 1032
Francine WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
HAWKEYE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant.
No. 06-CV-2093-LRR.
United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.
June 27, 2007.

Page 1033

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1034

Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Fiedler & Newkirk, PLC, Urbandale, IA, for Plaintiff.

Beth E. Hansen, Jim D. Dekoster, Swisher. & Cohrt, PLC, Waterloo, IA, for Defendant.

ORDER

READE, Chief Judge.


 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................1034
                 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...................................1034
                 A. Petition ...........................................1034
                 B. First Motion .......................................1035
                 C. Amended Complaint ..................................1035
                 D. Second Motion ......................................1035
                III. JURISDICTION ............................................1036
                 IV. MOTION TO DISMISS .......................................1036
                 A. Standard ...........................................1036
                 B. Count II ...........................................1036
                 C. Count III ..........................................1037
                 D. Count IV ...........................................1037
                 1. Allegations ...................................1037
                 2. Arguments .....................................1038
                 3. Analysis ......................................1039
                 V. MOTION TO STRIKE ........................................1042
                 VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................1043
                
I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Defendant Hawkeye Community College's Partial Motion to Dismiss and Strike Amended Complaint (docket no. 15) ("Second Motion").

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Petition

On November 27, 2006, Plaintiff Francine Williams filed a two-count Petition against Defendant in the Iowa District Court in and for Black Hawk County. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged "Race Discrimination and Retaliation," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. In Count II, Plaintiff alleged a "Violation of [C]ontractual

Page 1035

[R]ights [D]ue to [R]ace," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On December 14, 2006, Defendant removed the Petition to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

B. First Motion

On January 13, 2007, Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 6) ("First Motion"). On February 21, 2007, the court dismissed Count II of the Petition, because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court held that, because Defendant is a state actor, Plaintiff was required to enforce her § 1981 rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 735, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) (holding that § 1983 "provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by § 1981 when the claim is pressed against a state actor"); Lockridge v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ark., 315 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) ("[A] claim alleging a violation of § 1981 may not be brought directly against a state actor, but must be brought under § 1983."); Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass'n, Inc., 161 F.3d 1178, 1181 (8th Cir.1998) ("A federal action to enforce rights under § 1981 against a state actor may only be brought pursuant to § 1983."). The court dismissed Count II without prejudice, however, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within ten days. Cf. Lockridge, 315 F.3d at 1007 (liberally construing a complaint that alleged a § 1981 claim against a state actor as a § 1983 claim).

C. Amended Complaint

On February 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a four-count Amended Complaint against Defendant. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges "Race Discrimination and Retaliation," in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. In Count II, Plaintiff alleges a "Violation of [C]ontractual [R]ights [D]ue to [R]ace," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In Count III, Plaintiff alleges a "Violation of Rights [G]ranted under Federal and State [L]aw to [A]ffirmative [A]ction to [P]revent [R]ace from [O]perating as a[B]arrier to [E]qual [E]mployment," in violation of Executive Order 11246,1 Iowa Code chapter 17A (2003), Iowa Code chapter 19B and Iowa Code section 260C.29. In Count IV, Plaintiff alleges a "Violation of Rights [G]ranted under Federal [L]aw `under [C]olor of [S]tate [L]aw," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

D. Second Motion

On March 2, 2007, Defendant filed the Second Motion. In the Second Motion, Defendant asks the court to dismiss Counts II, III and IV of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant also asks the court to strike certain allegations from the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

On March 5, 2007, the court granted the Second Motion in part and dismissed Count II of the Amended Complaint. See Order (docket no. 16), at 1. The court reiterated that § 1983 "provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by § 1981 when the claim is pressed against a state actor." Jett, 491 U.S. at 736, 109 S.Ct. 2702. The court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the remainder of the Second Motion on or before March 12, 2007.

On March 12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Resistance to the Second Motion. In the Resistance, Plaintiff resists the Second Motion in its entirety. She also asks the

Page 1036

court to reinstate Count II of the Amended Complaint. Defendant did not file a Reply.

The Second Motion is fully submitted. Neither party requests oral argument, and the court finds that oral argument is not necessary.

III. JURISDICTION

The court finds that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint. The court has jurisdiction over all counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."); id. § 1367(a) ("[T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action with such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy."). But see id. § 1367(c) (granting district courts discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under certain circumstances).

IV. MOTION TO DISMISS
A. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes the district court to dismiss a claim if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In assessing the Second Motion, the court is required to view the allegations in the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the nonmoving party. In re Operation of Mo. River Sys. Litig.; 418 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir.2005). The court must accept all the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Mo. River Sys. Litig., 418 F.3d at 917. The court may "dismiss the case only when it appears beyond [a] doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief." Mo. River Sys. Litig., 418 F.3d at 917 (internal quotations omitted). "The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the [plaintiff] is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). Thus, "as a practical matter, [dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is likely to be granted] only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show, on the face of the [Amended Complaint], that there is some insuperable bar to relief." Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir.2004) (quoting Frey v. Herculaneum 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995)).

B. Count II

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges a "Violation of [C]ontractual [R]ights [D]ue to [R]ace," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As indicated, the court already granted the Second Motion in part and dismissed Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, because § 1983 "provides the exclusive federal damages remedy for the violation of the rights guaranteed by § 1981 when the claim is pressed against a state actor." Jett, 491 U.S. at 735, 109 S.Ct. 2702.

In her Resistance, Plaintiff asks the court to reinstate Count 11.2 The court denies this request for the same reasons expressed in the court's February 11, 2007

Page 1037

Order (docket no. 11), at 2-4, and March 5, 2007 Order (docket no: 16), at 1.

C. Count III

In Count III, Plaintiff alleges a "Violation of Rights [G]ranted under Federal and State [L]aw to [A]ffirmative [A]ction to [P]revent [R]ace from [O]perating as a[B]arrier to [E]qual [E]mployment," in violation of Executive Order 11246 and three Iowa statutes, namely, Iowa Code chapter 17A, Iowa Code chapter 19B and Iowa Code section 260C.29. In the Second Motion, Defendant asks the court to dismiss Count III pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant con.: tends that Executive Order 11246 and the three Iowa statutes do not create private rights of action. In the alternative, Defendant argues that the Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965 ("ICRA"), Iowa Code chapter 216, preempts any cause of action under the three Iowa statutes.

The court holds that neither Executive Order 11246 nor any of the three Iowa statutes creates a private right of action. See, e.g., Utley v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 811 F.2d 1279, 1284-86 (9th Cir.1987) (holding Executive Order 11246 does not create a private right of action); Cohen v. Ill. Inst. of Tech., 524 F.2d 818, 822 n. 4 (7th Cir.1975) (same); Weise v. Syracuse Univ., 522 F.2d 397, 411 n. 23 (2d Cir.1975) (same); Morris v. Amalgamated Lithographers of Am., Local One, 994...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Belton v. City of Memphis, No. W2015-01785-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • May 10, 2016
    ...rather than the remedial vehicle"); Knox v. City of Monroe, 551 F. Supp. 2d 504, 512 (W.D. La. 2008); Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (N.D. Iowa 2007); Clayton v. Pa. Dep't of Pub. Welfare ex rel. Richman, No. 4:CV 05-0768, 2007 WL 575677, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2......
  • Van Story v. Wash. Cnty. Health Dep't, Civil No. ELH-17-3590
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 25, 2019
    ...to mean civil actions "based solely on" a statute enacted after December 1, 1990. See, e.g., Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (N.D. Iowa 2007) ("To hold that . . . § 1658 could never apply to a § 1983 claim would effectively and impermissibly interpret 'arising un......
  • Ward v. Von Maur, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-00159.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • August 29, 2008
    ...claim arising out of her applications to the credit department in 2001 and 2002 are barred. See Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll., 494 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1042 (N.D.Iowa 2007). Again, Plaintiffs state that they are "not seeking redress for incidents prior to [the October 10, 2002] date." Pls.' Re......
  • Hood v. Upah, No. 11-CV-96-LRR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • July 16, 2012
    ...can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The applicable statute of limitations is two years. See Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll. , 494 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1039-40 (N.D. Iowa 2007) (finding the appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 claims arising in Iowa is two years when such claims ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Belton v. City of Memphis, No. W2015-01785-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • May 10, 2016
    ...rather than the remedial vehicle"); Knox v. City of Monroe, 551 F. Supp. 2d 504, 512 (W.D. La. 2008); Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (N.D. Iowa 2007); Clayton v. Pa. Dep't of Pub. Welfare ex rel. Richman, No. 4:CV 05-0768, 2007 WL 575677, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2......
  • Van Story v. Wash. Cnty. Health Dep't, Civil No. ELH-17-3590
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 25, 2019
    ...to mean civil actions "based solely on" a statute enacted after December 1, 1990. See, e.g., Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll., 494 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1041 (N.D. Iowa 2007) ("To hold that . . . § 1658 could never apply to a § 1983 claim would effectively and impermissibly interpret 'arising un......
  • Ward v. Von Maur, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-00159.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Southern District of Iowa
    • August 29, 2008
    ...claim arising out of her applications to the credit department in 2001 and 2002 are barred. See Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll., 494 F.Supp.2d 1032, 1042 (N.D.Iowa 2007). Again, Plaintiffs state that they are "not seeking redress for incidents prior to [the October 10, 2002] date." Pls.' Re......
  • Hood v. Upah, No. 11-CV-96-LRR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • July 16, 2012
    ...can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The applicable statute of limitations is two years. See Williams v. Hawkeye Cmty. Coll. , 494 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1039-40 (N.D. Iowa 2007) (finding the appropriate statute of limitations for § 1983 claims arising in Iowa is two years when such claims ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT