United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ROBERT L. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
MARISA BURGESS-SUNTIMER, COL. TODD BRIERE, MR. WILLIAM BUTLER, and DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendants
Robert L. Taylor, Plaintiff, Pro se, Honolulu, HI.
For Marisa Burgess-Suntimer, COL Todd Briere, William Butler, Department of the Army, Defendants: Edric Ming-Kai Ching, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
J. Michael Seabright, United States District Judge.
On May 31, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Robert L. Taylor (" Plaintiff") filed this action asserting that he accepted a position for " Decedent Affairs Assistant" at Fort Shafter, Hawaii which was improperly advertised, that he was lied to so that he would accept the position, and that his position should be at a higher grade.
Currently before the court is Defendants Marisa Burgess-Suntimer, Col. Todd Briere, Mr. William Butler, and the Department of the Army's (collectively, " Defendants") Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint is pled in such conclusory fashion that Plaintiff has failed to establish this court's jurisdiction or the basis of his claims. Based on the following, the court agrees and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with leave for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint.
A. Factual Background
As alleged in Plaintiff's January 31, 2014 Amended Complaint, in June 2008, Plaintiff applied for and accepted a job for " decedent affairs assistant" at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. Doc. No. 22, Am. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that he questioned whether the position was properly advertised, and it was only after he accepted the position and moved to Hawaii that Plaintiff realized that " I was correct, and they had lied to get me here." Id. at 4. Although unclear, Plaintiff also appears to assert that the position should be classified at a higher grade. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants " have been trying to rewrite my job description" to deduct information so that the job will be approved at a lower grade and that Defendants will not be liable for back pay. Id.
Plaintiff seeks back pay, compensatory damages, pre- and postjudgment interest, as well as " damages for carrying a very active illegal hospital pager, which put me on call for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days out of the year, " causing sleep deprivation, post traumatic stress syndrome, and sleep apnea. Id. at 3. In total, Plaintiff seeks $650, 000 in damages. Id.
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 31, 2013, and filed his Amended Complaint on January 31, 2014. Doc. No. 22.
On October 17, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. Doc. No. 42. On November 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document titled " First Amended Complaint in Response to Attorney for the Defendants(s), " Doc. No. 51, which the court construes as Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion. In particular, the court construes Plaintiff's filing as an Opposition because (1) Plaintiff has already filed one Amended Complaint, see Doc. No. 22, (2) Plaintiff did not seek (and was not granted) leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, (3) Plaintiff filed this document on the date his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was ...