Marinello v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Rosario Marinello, representing himself, sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged that CDCR made adverse employment decisions involving his former employment and later applications for positions, including an application for a Case Records Analyst position in 2017. He sought monetary damages.

The court had previously allowed Marinello to proceed without paying the filing fee but found during its initial screening that his complaint did not state a claim for relief. The initial order focused on the requirement that a Title VII lawsuit be filed within 90 days after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues a right-to-sue notice.

Marinello then filed a document labeled an amended request for a hearing and summary judgment. The court treated that document as his First Amended Complaint and considered a related addendum as additional information about the filing dates.

Screening and filing deadline

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, courts must dismiss a case filed without a filing fee if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or is brought against an immune defendant. The court applied that screening standard to the First Amended Complaint.

The additional filings clarified that the EEOC issued Marinello’s right-to-sue notice on September 5, 2018. Because the record did not show when Marinello or his attorney received the notice, the court presumed receipt three days after mailing, on September 8, 2018. The court therefore calculated December 7, 2018, as the 90-day filing deadline.

Marinello mailed his complaint to the court on July 26, 2019, although the docket identified August 9, 2019, as the filing date. Even using the earlier mailing date, the court found that the lawsuit was filed more than seven and a half months after the deadline. It therefore concluded that the Title VII claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that the First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim.

The First Amended Complaint also referred to a one-year California filing period. The court explained that this appeared to refer to a possible claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, but that state-law claim would not have original federal-question jurisdiction. The court also stated that it appeared Marinello and CDCR were both California citizens, eliminating diversity jurisdiction, although supplemental jurisdiction might be possible if a viable Title VII claim remained.

Equitable tolling and amendment

Equitable tolling is a limited doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances. The court stated that it is applied sparingly and generally requires circumstances such as inadequate notice, a pending request for counsel, or misleading conduct by the court.

The court found that Marinello’s filings did not yet establish an extreme case justifying equitable tolling. Marinello stated that he could not file within 90 days because he was seeking legal representation and did not have enough money for an attorney’s retainer. His addendum also referred to a small-claims case in Monterey County. Construing his filings liberally because he was representing himself, the court treated these statements as a possible attempt to claim equitable tolling.

Because the record did not make clear whether equitable tolling might apply, the court granted Marinello leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 16, 2020. The court directed him to identify the relevant events and dates between issuance of the right-to-sue notice and mailing of the complaint, and to explain how those events might justify the late filing.

Summary-judgment request

The court terminated Marinello’s request for summary judgment as premature. CDCR had not been served with either complaint and had not appeared in the case. The court stated that Marinello could file a summary-judgment motion later if he amended successfully and the case proceeded. It also stated that, absent good cause, each party would generally be limited to one summary-judgment motion.

Disposition

The court concluded that the First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim because the Title VII claim appeared untimely and did not include facts supporting equitable tolling. It granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by March 16, 2020. It terminated the request for summary judgment as premature, without prejudice to filing a later motion if the case proceeded. Judge Susan Van Keulen signed the order.