Stricklin v. United States

Background

Alivia Jeneen Stricklin alleged that she sought federal support in connection with contract and employment matters. Her complaint asserted seven causes of action, including claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VI, Title VII, the Privacy Act, and California law. The allegations referred to alleged discrimination based on race, gender, and national origin; interference with employment or contract opportunities; disclosure of her Social Security number; agency misconduct; and other alleged injuries.

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not provide the required facts to support its causes of action. It also argued that claim preclusion, sometimes called res judicata, barred claims that had already been raised or could have been raised in an earlier action, and that the complaint was too vague under Rule 12(e) for the defendant to understand the claims.

Motion to dismiss

The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court stated that claims already dismissed in Stricklin’s previous 2017 action were barred by claim preclusion and that an amended complaint should include only claims and facts that were not at issue in the earlier case.

The court also directed Stricklin to address possible statute-of-limitations problems. It observed that the most recent event alleged appeared to have occurred in 2017 and explained that, for example, claims under § 1983 generally have a two-year limitations period under the applicable rules discussed in the opinion.

The court further required the amended complaint to establish a basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction and to allege sufficient facts showing why governmental immunity did not apply. It instructed Stricklin to state separate causes of action, identify the constitutional or statutory basis for each one, describe each defendant’s alleged wrongful acts, and explain the resulting harm. The court said the existing pleading did not clearly explain what happened or what claims Stricklin was asserting and directed her to provide specific facts addressing who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Stricklin could file an amended complaint by April 1, 2022. The court stated that failure to file an amended complaint, or failure to file one complying with the stated requirements, would result in dismissal of the action.

Motion to suppress

Stricklin separately moved to suppress, seeking to prevent consideration of her previous case against the government. The court denied that motion. It held that courts may take judicial notice—meaning recognition without requiring proof—of proceedings in other courts when those proceedings directly relate to matters before the court.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to suppress was denied. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the underlying discrimination, privacy, agency-misconduct, or state-law allegations.