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.

Naharaja v. Wray

United States District Court, D. Oregon

June 30, 2015

CARTER D. WRAY, et al., Defendants.

Kumar Naharaja, Portland, OR, Pro se Plaintiff.

Amy Joseph Pedersen, Andrea H. Thompson, STOEL RIVES LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.


MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Dr. Kumar Naharaja attempts to bring a discrimination suit arising out of his termination from the Graduate Medical Education residency training program at Oregon Health Science University (OHSU). Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in July of 2013. He amended his complaint a few weeks later. On August 6, 2014, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On December 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, bringing claims against OHSU and eighteen individual defendants.

Now before the Court is Defendants' second motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's fifth motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and grants Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), thereby dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Because amendment to the complaint would be futile, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice.


A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the claims. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). "All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Am. Family Ass'n, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the court need not accept conclusory allegations as truthful. See Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[W]e are not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint, and we do not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.") (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). Rather, to state a plausible claim for relief, the complaint "must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts" to support its legal conclusions. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if a plaintiff alleges the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief" with nothing "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.]" Id . (citations and footnote omitted).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[, ]" meaning "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) (internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint must contain "well-pleaded facts" which "permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct[.]" Id. at 679.

"A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, ' and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (citations omitted)). However, a court cannot supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. See Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).


As with Plaintiff's first amended complaint, Plaintiff brings claims in his second amended complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 2000e et seq., and the Oregon Unlawful Employment Discrimination Law, ORS 659A.030. He also adds claims of "fraudulent concealment of Class C felony ORS § 677.080(4) and Title 22 U.S.C. 7102(8)(severe forms of trafficking in persons)." Second Amended Complaint (SAC) 2. Defendants move to dismiss all claims.

I. Plaintiff's Fifth Motion for Extension of Time to Respond

Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion was due on March 9, 2015. On March 9, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond, which this Court granted. On April 10, 2015, when Plaintiff's response was due, Plaintiff requested another extension of time, which this court granted. On May 5, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff yet another extension of time. However, in granting this extension, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond by June 5, 2015, and made clear that "no further continuances of this date [would] be granted without a showing of exceptional circumstance." Order, May 5, 2015, ECF 156. On June 5, 2015, Plaintiff requested a fourth extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion. Plaintiff explained that he needed the extension because he has no source of earned income, he had to "attend to his personal circumstances, " and he is proceeding pro se in this case. Pl.'s Mot. Fourth Ext., June 5, 2015, ECF 157. Before the Court ruled on Plaintiff's fourth request for an extension of time, he filed a fifth request for an extension of time. Pl.'s Mot. Fifth Ext., June 22, 2015, ECF 160. ...

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.