Wilding v. Christus St. Vincent Hospital
1:13-cv-00745
D.N.M.Sep 3, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Susan Wilding, proceeding pro se, seeks to proceed in district court without paying costs (IFP).
- Court must screen under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a),(e) and dismiss if conditions are met.
- Court denied IFP due to financial inability; suit dismissed for failure to state cognizable federal claims and potential timeliness issues.
- Plaintiff’s allegations reference ADEA and EPA claims; also disputes involving a hospital, a doctor, and a union; complaint is largely illegible.
- Untimely filing is suggested: EEOC right-to-sue deadline and 90/180-day limitations interact with May 2, 2013 EEOC letter and August 2013 filings.
- Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over potential state-law claims, given federal dismissals and LMRA preemption concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilding may proceed IFP notwithstanding the financial showing | Wilding argues she cannot pay costs | Court finds poverty not demonstrated | IFP denied; complaint dismissed for lack of poverty and other grounds. |
| Whether ADEA claims are timely and cognizable | Claims were not properly addressed in timely manner | EEOC procedures and 90-day/60-day timelines bar suit | ADEA claims time-barred and dismissed. |
| Whether EPA claims are time-barred or inadequately pled | Back pay issues alleged; EPA claim not timely filed | EPA two-year/three-year limitations; no willful violation shown | EPA claim time-barred and inadequately pled; dismiss. |
| Whether § 1983 claim against Dr. Smith, Martinez, Yontz is viable | Claims alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 | Defendants are not state actors; no color of state law | No § 1983 claim; no subject-matter jurisdiction for federal rights claim. |
| Whether hybrid LMRA/state-law claims against union are time-barred or pre-empted | Union breached representation; back wages/grievance rights | Potential six-month limitations under LMRA/§301 bar claims | Claims time-barred or precluded; no supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 2005) (screening IFP and § 1915(e) dismissals apply to frivolous claims)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (requiring plausible factual pleading)
- Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is required for access to courts)
- Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (prima facie inquiry includes inference of discrimination in ADEA claims)
- Keller v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 491 Fed. App’x 908 (10th Cir. 2012) (EPA claims require showing of unequal pay for substantially equal work)
- Carlton v. Local No. 7 United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l. Union, 43 Fed. App’x 289 (10th Cir. 2002) (hybrid § 301/unfair-representation limitations period can bar claims)
- Mehdipour v. Matthews, 386 Fed. App’x 775 (10th Cir. 2010) (illustrates lack of state-action basis for § 1983 claims against non-governmental defendants)