UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KATHERINE A. CURETON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-2209 (RJL) KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary, U.S_. Department of Homeland Security, et al., FILED SEP 26 2018 D'efendants. /./V/.///././.// Clork. U.S. D|strict & Bankruptcy Courts tor the District of Columbla +¢. MEMORANDUM OPINION September §§ , 2018 [Dkt. # 6] Plaintiff, appearing pro se, sues the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and several DHS employees, claiming reprisal for engaging in protected activity under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e The complaint is far from clear but stems from an alleged negative reference that “management officials” of the Office of Chief Financial Officer (“OCFO”) provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) as part of a pre-employment screening investigation Compl. 1 III. Pending is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 6] (“Defs.’ Mot.”) under Rule lZ(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Which plaintiff has opposed. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s l/Iot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] (“Opp’n”). Defendants contend that plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies and has otherwise failed to plead sufficiently under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, defendants contend that dismissal of all named defendants except Dl-lS Secrctary Kirstjen Nielsen is required. Plaintiffhas filed an unfocused opposition recounting events that were the subject of her previous employment discrimination cases in this court. See Careton v. Nz`elsen, 304 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D.D.C. 20l8), appeal alisml`ssea’, No. 18-5l04, 2018 WL 4099617 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 20l8) (“Carelon I]"); Carelc)n v. Da/ce, 272 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom. Carelon v. Nielsen, No. 17-5251, 2018 WL 4154788 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2018) (“Carel'on [”). For the reasons explained below, defendants’ motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff claims generally “Employment Discrimination Based upon Reprisal, previous EEO activity during federal employment 9/2013, 8/2015, 2/2016.” Compl. 11 ll. A. She “believes she has been subjected to intentional discrimination and treated unfairly by DHS” since September 16, 2013, when she filed an age discrimination claim “while employed by DHS” at the OCFO. Opp’n at l; see also Compl. at 5.l ln this case, plaintiff reasserts a retaliation claim that was dismissed in 2017 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defs.’ l/lot. at 2 (citing Carel'on [). The relevant facts follow. A. Adverse Fitness Decision On March 14, 2016, plaintiff was offered the full-time position of Senior Records l/lanager/Project l/lanager with a federal contractor, BarnAllen "l`echnologies, lnc. rl`hc position was assigned to lCE’s Agency Records l/lanagement project located at an ICE ' All page citations are those automatically assigned by the Cl/l/ECF system. facility in Washington, D.C. See Compl. Attachments |:Dl<t. # l-l] at 7 (offer lettcr). Plaintiff`s “expected start date [was] contingent upon” the government’s “acceptance of [her] qualifications” and “a favorable security clearance by the government.” [al. By letter ofl/lay 6, 2016, plaintiffwas informed by Anthony Pierri, lCE`s Section Chiefofthe Personnel Security Unit, that “based upon the investigative results” of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals