Michael Leon v. the Boeing Company
664 F. App'x 613
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael A. Leon (pro se) sued asserting Title VII and state-law claims; the Northern District of Illinois transferred the case to the District of Arizona.
- The district court dismissed Leon’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a Title VII retaliation claim and denied leave to amend.
- Leon moved for recusal of judges; those motions were denied.
- The district court declared Leon a vexatious litigant and entered a narrowly tailored pre-filing order, with limited procedures for certain future filings.
- Leon sought permission to file electronically and challenged the transfer and other procedural rulings on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal and the ancillary orders, with one modification directing the district court to allow Leon to seek permission from the magistrate judge to file in forma pauperis or to bring certain statutory claims in future filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leon stated a Title VII retaliation claim | Leon alleged acts constituting retaliation by defendant | Defendants argued Leon did not allege protected activity under Title VII | Dismissal affirmed — Leon failed to allege protected conduct under Title VII |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend | Leon sought leave to amend to cure defects | District court argued amendment would be futile | Denial affirmed — amendment would be futile |
| Whether judges should have been disqualified | Leon contended recusal was warranted | District court maintained no valid ground for recusal | Denial affirmed — no basis for disqualification |
| Whether the vexatious-litigant pre-filing order was proper | Leon argued the order was improper/overbroad | Court relied on record of frivolous filings and tailored restrictions | Affirmed (with direction): order proper and narrowly tailored; magistrate may consider applications to file certain future claims or for IFP status |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass'n Inc., 41 F.3d 524 (9th Cir.) (elements of Title VII retaliation claim)
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 818 F.3d 799 (9th Cir.) (standard for denying leave to amend)
- United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882 (9th Cir.) (standards and grounds for judicial disqualification)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir.) (factors and standards for imposing pre-filing restrictions on vexatious litigants)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.) (forum non conveniens/transfer analysis and weight of plaintiff's forum choice)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (issues not raised in opening brief are not considered)