Chang v. Department of Homeland Security

Background

Ching Fang Chang filed an amended complaint in California state court and proceeded without a lawyer. The complaint named 41 defendants, including 31 federal defendants: the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, the Department of Justice, and identified federal employees. The complaint also named non-federal defendants, but none of those defendants appeared.

The federal defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California and moved to dismiss all claims against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Chang did not file an opposition. The court also noted that Chang had not joined the federal defendants in required case-management statements and had submitted letters stating that she did not intend to provide information beyond the complaint and could not understand what was occurring in the case.

Rulings on the Claims

The court granted the federal defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss, with leave to amend all claims against those defendants.

* Employment-discrimination claims: Chang sued several Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices, supervisors, and coworkers. The court held that, under Title VII, the head of the relevant department, agency, or unit is the proper defendant in a federal-government employment-discrimination case, and individual employees do not have personal liability under that law. The court dismissed the employment-discrimination claims against the individual offices, supervisors, and coworkers identified in the opinion. * Hostile-work-environment claim: Chang alleged “bullying” and a “hostile work environment.” The court held that she did not allege that the conduct was because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and dismissed this claim against the federal defendants for failure to state a claim. * Retaliation claim: Chang alleged “Non-Stop Retaliations” and “Direct and Indirect Retaliations.” The court held that she did not allege that she acted to protect her rights under Title VII and was then subjected to retaliation because of that action. The court dismissed the retaliation claim against the federal defendants. * Negligence claim: Chang appeared to allege that the Department of Justice and its attorneys acted negligently in handling a case involving her. The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act requires a claimant to submit an administrative claim before filing suit and that this requirement is jurisdictional. Because Chang provided no evidence that she had filed an administrative claim with the Department of Justice, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the negligence claim and dismissed it. * Other alleged issues: Chang listed “Unreasonable and Unfair Issues,” including allegations described as unintelligible or boilerplate. The court dismissed these allegations against the federal defendants for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege a legally sufficient claim.

The court ordered Chang to file any amended complaint within 30 days. It stated that failure to do so, or failure to correct the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice. It also stated that Chang could not add new claims or parties without a stipulation or the court’s permission and had to attach a redlined comparison with the amended complaint.

Other Motions and Disposition

Chang’s request to transfer the case back to the San Francisco County Superior Court was treated as a motion to remand and was denied. The court explained that claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act may be brought only in federal court. The federal defendants’ request for judicial notice of six exhibits was denied without prejudice because the court did not rely on those exhibits. Their administrative motion to supplement the record with a declaration was granted.

The order did not state a disposition for the non-federal defendants. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered the order on July 15, 2021.