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. Spencer

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

April 12, 2018

JOE ANN WEST, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD SPENCER, Secretary of the Navy Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. #S 5, 15, 17, 18, AND 19]

          Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Spencer's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 5]; Plaintiff West's “Second Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference” [Dkt. #15]; West's Motion to Add Kelly Bishop Affidavit [Dkt. #17]; West's “Motion to Produce Case's Docket for Case No 16-cv-5671RBL Lindberg v Spencer” [Dkt. # 18]; and West's Motion to Add West's Affidavit [Dkt. #19].

         The Court reads the Motions to “add affidavits” as an effort to supply additional information in response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Because such a motion tests the only the plaintiff's allegations (the plausibility of her complaint), and not her evidence, affidavits attesting to facts properly alleged are not necessary or particularly useful[1]. Nevertheless, the Court has read the documents, and West's Motions to file them [Dkt. #s 17 and 19] are GRANTED.

         West's “Motion to Produce Case's Docket for Case No 16-cv-5671RBL Lindberg v Spencer” [Dkt. # 18] is nonsensical and is DENIED. West can access the public portions of Lindberg's case on line (as she repeatedly alleges); she claims she is Lindberg's friend, and it is apparent that each has some connection to Ceu Alves, who may be the author of most of the filings in this case[2]. The Court is not going to provide West the docket in what even she claims is an unrelated case.

         A. BACKROUND

         This is the ninth case (out of twelve) West has filed in the past two years[3], all facially relating to her employment at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, from which she was terminated in August 2016. Each makes the same basic allegations and accusations.

         In each case, West repeats well-worn accusations about an attorney (Alison McKay) she claims was not licensed in Washington, though she fails to allege that anyone ever claimed McKay was so licensed, or that she engaged in any legal practice here that would require her to be so licensed. She fails to explain how that fact remotely-much less plausibly-supports any claim by West against Spencer or anyone else. West consistently accuses the Court and the U.S. Attorney of “failing to inform her” of McKay's status but fails to demonstrate when why or how the Court was to do so. West has in each case accused the Court and her opponents of all forms of conspiracy and impropriety, and has repeatedly sought recusal of both the Court and the U.S. Attorney. The first eight of Wests cases have been dismissed, either with or without prejudice, and her appeal in at least one of the cases was recently dismissed as frivolous. See West v. Stackley, C17-5246RBL, Dkt. # 56.

         This case differs from the others in that West also describes a variety of sexual and other harassment that she claims to have endured at the shipyard. She is not clear on the timing, however, and one of the more graphic and detailed incidents apparently occurred in 2009. She also claims that she was sexually harassed “for years” before 2015.

         But while she does identify at least some of the actors, she does not name any of them as parties; instead, she continues to sue only Spencer in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy:

Sean J, Stackley is the Secretary of the United States Navy. As an employer of 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 anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

[Dkt. #1 at 20]. She makes no other allegations against him. As in prior cases, West broadly alleges discrimination on the basis of race, color, and mental disability, and retaliation for protected EEO activity. She asserts against Spencer claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.

         The Secretary seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)] and for failure to state a plausible claim [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)].

         B. DISCUSSION

         When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Wolfe v. Strankman,392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Generally, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of material fact and draw all reasonable ...


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.