Luckey v. Visalia Unified School District, No. 1:2013cv00332 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 05/23/2014. Motion is referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 6/26/2014. (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY LUCKEY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:13-cv-00332-AWI-SAB FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE DENIED v. VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ECF NO. 29 15 Defendant. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 16 17 18 On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff Timothy Luckey filed a motion for summary judgment. 19 (ECF No. 29.) The motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for findings and 20 recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72. 21 For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for 22 summary judgment be denied. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND 25 The operative complaint in this action is the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff 26 on September 26, 2013. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. Plaintiff 27 alleges that his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 28 2000e, et seq.) were violated by Defendant because Plaintiff was subjected to differential 1 1 treatment based upon his race (black) and his sex (male). 2 Plaintiff alleges that he was employed at Crestwood Elementary School within VUSD. 3 Plaintiff contends that he was segregated and isolated from other staff and students by Jim 4 Sullivan, the principal at Crestwood Elementary School and such treatment was based on 5 Plaintiff’s race and sex. Plaintiff complained to Jim Sullivan and to human resources about the 6 differential treatment, but was reprimanded for his complaints. Plaintiff was given reduced work 7 hours and eventually terminated, allegedly because Plaintiff threatened to file an EEOC 8 complaint regarding the mistreatment. 9 On October 7, 2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and found 10 that it stated a cognizable claim for retaliation under Title VII. (ECF No. 13.) On January 10, 11 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied on April 11, 2014. (ECF 12 Nos. 16, 23.) On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed the present motion for summary judgment now 13 before the Court. (ECF No. 29.) 14 II. 15 LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, “[a] party may move for summary judgment ... 17 if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 18 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Summary judgment must be entered “against a party 19 who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 20 party’s case...” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[A] party seeking summary 21 judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its 22 motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 23 and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the 24 absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. 25 III. 26 DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment appears to be premature. The schedule 28 conference in this matter has not yet occurred, discovery has not yet been scheduled and, to the 2 1 Court’s knowledge, the parties have not yet exchanged initial disclosures under Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). 3 Moreover, analyzing the substance of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 4 not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 5 stated claims under Title VII for discrimination on the basis of race and sex as well as for 6 retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment does 7 not demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute regarding whether Plaintiff’s termination and 8 adverse treatment was motivated by Defendant’s discriminatory or retaliatory animus. In fact, 9 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment acknowledges that Plaintiff received a negative 10 evaluation from Defendant, which supports the inference that Plaintiff’s termination was not 11 motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. 12 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment also attempts to rely on the fact that Defendant 13 has “failed to acknowledge” a number of facts listed throughout the motion. Whether a 14 Defendant “acknowledges” a particular fact is immaterial to the issue of whether or not that 15 particular fact is disputed. In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must 16 demonstrate that the facts are not in dispute and those undisputed facts show that Plaintiff is 17 entitled to judgment in his favor. In other words, the evidence must unequivocally support 18 Plaintiff’s version of the facts and no reasonable fact finder would find any material fact in 19 Defendant’s favor. Plaintiff’s motion does not demonstrate that the facts are not in dispute, as it 20 is facially evident that there is a dispute regarding whether Defendant’s actions were motivated 21 by Plaintiff’s race, sex or EEOC complaint, or whether Defendant’s actions were motivated by 22 Plaintiff’s poor work performance. 23 Plaintiff also discusses a number of requests for admission that Defendant apparently sent 24 to Plaintiff. This discussion has no readily apparent relevance to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 25 judgment. Plaintiff is advised that discovery, as a general matter, occurs without court 26 supervision. Accordingly, whether or not Plaintiff admits or refuses to admit the facts stated in 27 the requests for admission is an issue Plaintiff can address in his response to Defendant’s 28 discovery request, not in a motion to the Court. 3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary 2 judgment. 3 IV. 4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement 6 to summary judgment on any of his claims. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 8 judgment be DENIED. 9 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 11 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 12 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 13 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 14 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate 15 Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 16 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 17 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 23, 2014 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
