Stricklin v. United States

Background

Alivia Jeneen Stricklin sued the United States. The court had previously granted the government’s motion to dismiss her original complaint and had given her an opportunity to amend it, identifying deficiencies that needed to be corrected. Stricklin filed a First Amended Complaint, and the United States filed a renewed motion to dismiss.

The amended complaint referred to a claim from 2013 and also referenced a 2017 administrative claim. It asserted four claims: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or possibly Title VII; a claim under the Privacy Act, identified in the opinion as 5 U.S.C. § 522a; and a claim under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Court’s analysis

The United States argued that the action should be dismissed with prejudice because the claims could not be brought against the United States, were barred by claim preclusion, were filed too late, and were too unclear to understand under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The court agreed with the government on all four grounds.

The court found that the amended complaint did not allege facts establishing a basis for liability of a federal actor for either the federal or state-law claims. The court also applied claim preclusion, a rule barring claims that were raised or could have been raised in an earlier action. It concluded that Stricklin had not included operative facts occurring after the earlier lawsuit that would support a claim against the United States or the Navy.

The court further concluded that the claims were time-barred because the amended complaint appeared to describe events from 1986 through 2017. The opinion states that all four claims were therefore barred by applicable statutes of limitations.

Rulings

The court granted the United States’ renewed motion to dismiss. It stated that the First Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice and, in the conclusion, that it was dismissed without leave to amend. The court also denied Stricklin’s motion to appoint counsel, finding that appointing counsel would be futile because of the fatal defects in the amended complaint. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and resolved the matter on the papers.