Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

West v. Stackley

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

September 19, 2017

JOE ANN WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
SEAN J STACKLEY, Secretary of the Department of the Navy, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

          HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Stackley's Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. # 8], and on Plaintiff West's Motions for a Conference [Dkt. #26] and for Recusal of U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes [Dkt. #27]. This is one of nine[1] cases West has filed related to her employment at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, which ended in August 2016.

         In this case, West complains generally about discrimination based on color and race (and perhaps sex), and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. She specifically claims that three “Navy Lawyers, ” including Alison McKay, engaged in a variety of unethical conduct (having “ex parte contacts with EEOC OFO Director Robert Barnhart and EEOC Administrative Judge Virginia MaGee”); sharing West's person information across state lines; and practicing law without a license):

Department of Defense-Department of the Navy Lawyers Megan Weiss, Alison L. McKay ana David B. Gattis - alt participated in violation of Rules of Ex Parte by having infinite and ongoing communications without sharing with my Representative or myself the complainant and owner of the complainants.
Department of Defense-Department of the Navy Lawyers Megan Weiss, Alison L. McKay and David B. Gattis - all participated in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 by sharing share EEO, PH AND HlPAA's information across states lines-California, Washington, Washington, D. C. and New Hampshire and unknown individuals without the need to know.

[Dkt. #1 at 1]

Department of Defense-Department of the Navy's EEO'S Officials and Legal Agents did not disclose to me Alison L. McKay was not A Lawyer in the State of Washington or a member of the Washington Bar Association. EEOC OFO Director Robert J. Barnhart, EEOC OFO Director Carlton M. Hadden, EEO Officer Kay Wakabayashi, Human Resource Officer & EEO Officer Rita Birang, EEOC Supervisor Administrative Judge Terrie B. Brodie, EEOC Administrative Judge Virginia M. MaGee, United States Congressional Liaison Richard L. Tift, Agency Authorizing Official Mary P. Argenzio-West, lawyers Megan Weiss and David B. Gattis tried to coverup and conceal Alison L. McKay's Status with the Washington Bar Association as an valid Washington State Bar Association Attorney.

[Dkt. #1 at 2].

         West asserts claims for violation of her 5th and 14th amendment rights, violations of her Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.) rights. She claims she has exhausted her administrative remedies and that she filed this action more than 180 days after she elected to have the EEOC hear her complaint. She also alleges that McKay violated the Privacy Act. She made similarly conclusory allegations against other non-parties who also appear to be naval attorneys.

         She mentions Defendant Stackley only once:

SEAN J. STACKLEY is the Secretary of the United States Navy. As an employer ot the Federal Government, the defendant is empowered to prescribe regulations for the operation of the Department of the Navy and the conduct of its employees, and is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

[Dkt. #1; Paragraph 3.2]. She otherwise makes no effort to tie the person she sued to the actions of which she complains.

         Stackley seeks dismissal or a more definite statement of West's claims, claiming that she has failed to state a plausible claim.

         Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiffs complaint must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Aschcroft v. Iqbal,129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as true the Complaint's well-pled facts, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat a Rule 12(c) motion. Vazquez v. L. A. County,487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnotes omitted). This requires a plaintiff to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.