Gaskins v. Hager et al
| Marcus C. Gaskins |
| Gregorio Africa, Sherri Dickerson and Phil Hager |
| 1:2020cv01977 |
| July 6, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Stephanie A Gallagher |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Correspondence to Marcus Gaskins re: transfer notification letter (c/m 7/6/2020) (krs, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 9 Case transferred in from District of District of Columbia; Case Number 1:19-cv-02313. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Transfer due by 6/26/2020. (mac) |
MINUTE ORDER denying #3 MOTION to Dismiss; finding as moot #7 Motion for Extension of Time; and, sua sponte, transferring this action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 29, 2019, Marcus Gaskin ("Mr. Gaskin"), pro se, filed this employment discrimination action against Defendants, who are all alleged to be residents of Maryland, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on September 4, 2019, arguing that Mr. Gaskin's complaint should be dismissed as untimely and that the venue is improper. See Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 3 at 1. Title VII requires that litigants "file their civil actions within ninety days of receipt of an EEOC Determination." Anderson v. Local 201 Reinforcing Rodmen, 886 F. Supp. 94, 96 (D.D.C. 1995). "However, the ninety-day time period is non-jurisdictional [and instead] functions like a statute of limitations and is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling." Wiley v. Johnson, 436 F. Supp. 2d 91, 96 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Mondy v. Sec. of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C.Cir.1988)). The Supreme Court has found that the time to file a complaint may be tolled, inter alia, "where the court has led the plaintiff to believe that [he] had done everything required of [him]." Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984). Courts have also "allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period." Wiley, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 96. Mr. Gaskin was issued his EEOC Right-to-Sue letter on February 19, 2019, see Pl.'s Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1, and thus was required to commence his action by May 20, 2019. On May 17, 2020, in lieu of filing an action, Mr. Gaskin filed a document titled "PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE CASE AGAINST ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY," in Docket 19-mc-112 in this court, requesting that he be given until June 30, 2019 to file his action. On June 12, 2019, Judge Boasberg, observing that the court could not rule on the pending motion without the accompanying complaint, ordered Mr. Gaskin to file his complaint within 45 days of his order, thus making the deadline to timely file July 29, 2019. See Order for Leave to Amend, 19-mc-112, ECF No. 1. Because Mr. Gaskin filed his extension request by Title VII's deadline, and then filed his complaint by the deadline specified in the court's June 12, 2019 Order, the Court finds that Mr. Gaskin's claim was equitably tolled because he "actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the statutory period." Wiley, 436 F. Supp. 2d at 96. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion as to dismissal based on timeliness. However, the Court agrees with Defendants that "venue is improper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)(1) and (2)." See Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 3 at 1. Under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b), a "civil action may be brought in--(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated." In this instance all Defendants are residents of the State of Maryland, and all incidents are alleged to have occurred in the State of Maryland. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2-5. However, the Court DENIES defendants motion to dismiss the current action based on improper venue, See Roman-Salgado v. Holder, 730 F. Supp. 2d 126, 129 (D.D.C. 2010) ("[T]he standard remedy for improper venue is to transfer the case to the proper court rather than dismissing it...."); and directs the Clerk of Court to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 6/16/2020. (lcegs2)
|
| Filing 8 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re #3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by GREGORIO AFRICA, SHERRI DICKERSON, PHIL HAGER. (Tyler, Hamilton) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Supplemental Briefing due no later than 12:00PM on 5/25/2020. Plaintiff Response due no later than 12:00PM on 6/8/2020 (mac) |
|
MINUTE ORDER. Recently, the Court discovered that Mr. Gaskin filed a document titled "PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE CASE AGAINST ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY," which was received by the Clerk's Office on May 20, 2019. In response to this document, on June 12, 2019, Judge Boasberg issued an ORDER, in docket number 19-mc-112, directing Mr. Gaskin to file his complaint and the requisite filing fee within 45 days of that ORDER. In light of Judge Boasberg's June 12, 2019 ORDER in 10-mc-112, Defendants shall file supplementary briefing addressing the ORDER'S impact, if any, on the pending Motion to Dismiss by no later than noon on May 25, 2020. Mr. Gaskin shall file his response by no later than noon on June 8, 2020. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/11/2020. (lcegs2)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve by MARCUS C. GASKINS (zjf) |
| Filing 6 REPLY to opposition to motion re #3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by GREGORIO AFRICA, SHERRI DICKERSON, PHIL HAGER. (Tyler, Hamilton) Modified on 3/3/2020 to correct filing date (jf). |
| Summons (3) Issued as to GREGORIO AFRICA, SHERRI DICKERSON, PHIL HAGER. (jf) |
| Filing 5 RESPONSE re #3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MARCUS C. GASKINS. (jf) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER directing plaintiff to respond to defendants motion to dismiss by no later than February 7, 2020. If plaintiff does not respond by that date, the Court may treat the motion as conceded and dismiss the case without prejudice. Plaintiff is directed to read this Order in its entirety upon receipt. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/14/2020. (lcegs1)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Response To Defendants Motion To Dismiss due by 2/7/2020. (mac) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss by GREGORIO AFRICA, SHERRI DICKERSON, PHIL HAGER (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, #2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Tyler, Hamilton) |
|
Filing 2
STANDING ORDER: The parties are directed to read the attached Standing Order Governing Civil Cases Before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in its entirety upon receipt. The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives in the attached Standing Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/13/19. (Attachment: Exhibit 1) (mac)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against GREGORIO AFRICA, SHERRI DICKERSON, PHIL HAGER ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 461610030) filed by MARCUS C. GASKINS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf) |
| SUMMONS Not Issued as to GREGORIO AFRICA, SHERRI DICKERSON, PHIL HAGER (jf) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Maryland District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
