Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yates v. Delaware Psychiatric Center

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 23, 2017

JACKIE F. YATES, Plaintiff,
v.
DELAWARE PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, Defendant.

          Jackie F. Yates, Dover, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

          Kenisha L. Ringgold, Deputy Attorney General Deputy, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Delaware Health and Human Services.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SIARK, U.S. District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Jackie F. Yates ("Plaintiff) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, alleging employment discrimination. (D.I. 2) She proceeds pro se and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs opposition thereto. (D.I. 15, 17)

         II. BACKGROUND

         The complaint alleges discriminatory acts of workplace harassment, suspension, and retaliation based upon national origin, occurring on September 17, 2012. (See D.I. 2) Plaintiff received a final determination and right to sue notice on June 6, 2013. (Id.) She commenced this action on July 1, 2013. Delaware Psychiatric Center ("DPC") is the named defendant. The Court takes notice that the right to sue notice is captioned Jackie Yates vs. State of DE/DHSS/DSAMH/DPC. (Id. at Ex.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and requests counsel.[1]

         III. MOTION TO DISMISS

         Defendant's motion to dismiss states that the DPC is not a legal entity subject to suit. The motion to dismiss is filed to the extent that the complaint can be construed as against Delaware Health and Human Sendees ("DHSS"). (D.I. 15) Plaintiff proceeds pro se and, therefore, the Court liberally construes the complaint as against DHSS, given that the DPC is operated by die DHSS. See Stoppelv. Hemy, 2011 WL 55911, at *1 (Del. Super. Cr. Jan. 4, 2011). In addition, the defendant named in the charge of discrimination is the combined entity of the State of DE/DHSS/DSAMH/DPC. The Clerk of Court will be directed to reflect on the Court docket that the named Defendant is Delaware Psychiatric Center/Delaware Health and Social Services. Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3), (4), (5), and (6) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) and (m), on the grounds that: (1) it was not properly served; (2) it was not timely served; (3) the claim is time-barred; and (4) the complaint fails to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.

         A. Legal Standards 1. Rule 12(b)(3)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) allows a defendant to move to dismiss for improper venue. When venue is improper, a district court must dismiss the action or, if in the interest of justice, transfer the action to a district in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The party moving for dismissal based on improper venue "has the burden of proving the affirmative defense." Myers v. American Dental Ass'n, 695 F.2d 716, 724 (3d Cir. 1982). When considering a motion to dismiss for improper venue, the court must generally accept as true the allegations in the pleadings and must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Heft v. AAI Corp., 355 F.Supp.2d 757, 762 (M.D. Pa. 2005) (citing Pinker v. Roche Holdings, Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 368 (3d Cir. 2002)).

         2. Rule 12(b)(4) and Rule 12(b)(5)

         A defendant may file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) when a plaintiff fails to properly serve him or her with the summons and complaint. A plaintiff "is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(1). At the time the complaint here was filed, Rule 4(m) imposed a 120-day time limit for perfection of service following the filing of a complaint.[2] If service is not completed within that time, the action is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See id.; see also MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1098 (3d Cir. 1995).

         3. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.