Amoo v. National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors/NCEES
2:18-cv-00383
| E.D. Wash. | Mar 19, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Lancelot Amoo, proceeding pro se, sued NCEES alleging civil rights violations and breach of contract for giving exam questions that omitted a required delta-to-wye transformation formula on exams in 2014 and August 27, 2015.
- Amoo previously raised the same allegations in Whitman County Superior Court (Feb 2017) and in a prior federal suit (No. 2:17-cv-00243-SMJ), where this Court dismissed his amended complaint as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
- In the present action (filed Dec 12, 2018), Amoo seeks $340,000 and reiterates that NCEES continued to use the problematic question after he alerted them in April 2015.
- NCEES moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing failure to state a claim and that the claims are time-barred; the Court took judicial notice of the prior state and federal filings.
- The Court found Amoo failed to allege any legally protectable interest or enforceable agreement and did not plead sufficient facts to show entitlement to relief.
- Given Amoo’s repeated prior filings and the nature of the deficiencies, the Court concluded amendment would be futile and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Amoo: omission of formula on exam questions violated his civil rights and breached contract; seeks damages | NCEES: complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to state a claim | Court: Complaint fails to allege a legally protectable interest or enforceable agreement; dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Whether claims are time-barred | Amoo: did not meaningfully address statute of limitations in complaint | NCEES: claims are time-barred | Court: did not reach statute-of-limitations issue because plaintiff failed to state a claim |
| Whether pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend | Amoo sought redress and reasserted prior factual allegations | NCEES: requested dismissal with prejudice given prior dismissals | Court: Denied leave to amend as futile given prior dismissals and inability to cure deficiencies |
| Whether judicial notice of prior proceedings is appropriate | Amoo: no objection noted | NCEES: submitted prior court records and requested notice | Court: Took judicial notice of prior state and federal court filings and rulings as proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires facts showing plausible entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim, not mere possibility)
- Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2017) (complaint must allege a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (judicial notice on Rule 12(b)(6) motions for matters of public record)
- Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (court construes complaint in plaintiff’s favor on dismissal motions)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (liberal construction of pro se complaints limits relief when essential elements are missing)
- Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2014) (courts may not supply essential elements absent from pro se pleadings)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend pro se complaints is generally granted unless amendment would be futile)
- United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors to consider in deciding whether to grant leave to amend)