Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Moseley v. Sessions

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division

November 17, 2017

CARY G. MOSELEY, JR, Plaintiff,
JEFF SESSIONS, attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice Defendants.



         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dkt. No. 20. This Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED.


         At this stage of the case, the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Cary Moseley, Jr. sued the Attorney General on November 16, 2016, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act PADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 to 12117. Dkt. No. 1. Because the ADA does not apply to employment by the federal government or its agencies, and Plaintiff's claims are against a federal employer-the Bureau of Prisons, and consequently, the Department of Justice-his claims are governed by the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. See Spence v. Straw, 54 F.3d 196, 202 (3d Cir. 1995) P[T]he Rehabilitation Act provides the exclusive means by which a litigant may raise claims of discrimination on the basis of handicap by federal agencies."). Specifically, Moseley has brought claims for termination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and hostile work environment from his employment with the Federal Correctional Institute in Jesup, Georgia. Dkt. No. 1, III.A, III.C.

         Moseley alleges that he was injured in October 2012 and suffered the permanent injury of nerve damage to the left dominant arm in March 2013. Id. at III.E ¶¶ 1-2. Moseley further alleges that after he was sent for a functional capacity evaluation in August 2013, he was denied an accommodation and filed a grievance. He was then told in October 2013 that he was not "fit for duty" and could not work at his place of employment. Id. ¶¶ 4-6. That same month, he contacted EAP for help with stress, and the union stopped his "eight point letter." Id. ¶¶ 7-8. After that, he was placed in a mental hospital due to stress and diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") and "major depressive disorder." Id. ¶ 9. While there, the prison decided he could return to work "full duty." Io\ ¶ 10. But when he left the hospital, DR[1] said he could no longer work at his employment. Id. ¶ 11. So he filed a worker's compensation claim, which was denied. Id. At this point, Moseley was told he could not file an EEO claim for an accommodation. Ia\ ¶ 12. He ran out of leave, and was approved for eighty hours. Ia\ ¶ 13. Upon request, he delivered a leave without pay memorandum to the prison. Id. ¶ 14. On a call from the prison, Moseley requested his retirement benefits, explaining that he needed more money after the denial of his worker's compensation claim. Id. ¶ 15. His retirement was approved in November 2014. Id. ¶ 16.

         Meanwhile, Moseley received a bill from the prison for approximately $3, 100 for unpaid insurance premiums while on leave without pay. Id. SI 17. Moseley now seeks the "same retirement as Suzanne Hastings retroactive to retirement date, " and to have his student loans paid off and his child's college paid for. Dkt. No. 1-3, V.


         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a plaintiff's complaint contain ''a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). When ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must accept as true the facts set forth in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 836 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2016). However, the Court does not accept as true threadbare recitations of the elements of the claim and disregards legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. At a minimum, a complaint should "contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1282-83 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001)).

         "Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys." Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)).


         Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims are barred because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. It further argues that even if Plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies, his claims should be dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.

         I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

         Before a plaintiff may file a suit for discrimination in federal court, he must exhaust his administrative remedies. In fact, administrative exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite to discrimination cases. Crawford v. Babbitt, 186 F.3d 1322, 1326 (11th Cir. 1999). Specifically, three requirements must be met: (1) the plaintiff must contact an agency's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") counselor within 45 days of the alleged discrimination; (2) he must file a complaint with the agency within 15 days of the notice of his right to do so; and (3) he must sue within 90 days of the agency's final decision or after 180 days have elapsed ...

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.