Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Marguerita Dillard v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General of The United States, 108 F.3d 1369, 2d Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Marguerita Dillard filed a discrimination action against the United States Postal Service. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim because Dillard did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies and was not entitled to tolling of those deadlines. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, agreeing that there was no basis for tolling the filing deadlines. The Second Circuit also affirmed the district court's denial of Dillard's discovery request.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Marguerita Dillard v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General of The United States, 108 F.3d 1369, 2d Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views2 pages
    Marguerita Dillard filed a discrimination action against the United States Postal Service. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim because Dillard did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies and was not entitled to tolling of those deadlines. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, agreeing that there was no basis for tolling the filing deadlines. The Second Circuit also affirmed the district court's denial of Dillard's discovery request.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-03-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 108 F.3d 1369 Docket: 96-6230

    Original Title

    Marguerita Dillard v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General of the United States, 108 F.3d 1369, 2d Cir. (1997)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marguerita Dillard filed a discrimination action against the United States Postal Service. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim because Dillard did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies and was not entitled to tolling of those deadlines. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, agreeing that there was no basis for tolling the filing deadlines. The Second Circuit also affirmed the district court's denial of Dillard's discovery request.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    27 views2 pages

    Marguerita Dillard v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster General of The United States, 108 F.3d 1369, 2d Cir. (1997)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Marguerita Dillard filed a discrimination action against the United States Postal Service. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim because Dillard did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies and was not entitled to tolling of those deadlines. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, agreeing that there was no basis for tolling the filing deadlines. The Second Circuit also affirmed the district court's denial of Dillard's discovery request.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    108 F.

    3d 1369

    NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED


    AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED
    TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT
    STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY
    CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR
    RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
    Marguerita DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Marvin T. RUNYON, Postmaster General of the United States,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 96-6230.

    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.


    March 21, 1997.

    FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN J. ELLIOT, New York, N.Y. (Stuart W.


    Gold, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, of counsel).
    FOR APPELLEE: NEIL M. CORWIN, Assistant United States Attorney,
    New York, N.Y. (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern
    District of New York, Steven M. Haber, Assistant United States Attorney,
    of counsel).
    Present JACOBS, LEVAL CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

    This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United
    States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was argued.

    ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,


    ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.

    Plaintiff-appellant, Marguerita Dillard, appeals from a June 28, 1996 judgment


    of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

    (Mukasey, J.), dismissing her discrimination action against the United State
    Postal Service. Dillard contends that the district court erred (1) in dismissing
    her claims for failure to timely exhaust her administrative remedies and (2) in
    denying her request to obtain discovery supposedly relevant to her defense of
    the Postal Service's motion to dismiss.
    4

    The district court dismissed Dillard's complaint for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), or alternatively, for failure to state a
    claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The
    district court's 12(b)(1) dismissal and its 12(b)(6) dismissal were both based on
    the same rationale--that Dillard did not timely exhaust her administrative
    remedies and was not entitled to a tolling of those deadlines on either equitable
    grounds or on the basis of the applicable regulatory tolling provision.

    The analysis under 12(b)(1), however, implicates issues of sovereign immunity


    and jurisdiction that are apparently undecided by this Court. We need not
    address these potentially novel issues because black-letter principles, applicable
    both to the analysis under 12(b)(1) and that under 12(b)(6), are fully sufficient
    to justify affirmance for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and
    well-reasoned opinion. See Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Peaslee, 88 F.3d 152, 155
    (2d Cir.1996) ("On some occasions ... considerations of judicial economy and
    restraint may persuade the court to avoid a difficult question of subject-matter
    jurisdiction when the case may be disposed of on a simpler ground.");
    Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Muszynski, 899 F.2d 151, 154-60 (2d Cir.1990). In
    short, we agree entirely with Judge Mukasey that there is no basis for tolling
    the filing deadlines; we therefore affirm the dismissal of Dillard's complaint for
    failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); and do not reach the issue of
    whether the 12(b)(1) dismissal was proper.

    The district court's decision to deny Dillard's discovery request was also proper
    and we affirm that decision also for the reasons stated in Judge Mukasey's
    opinion.

    We have considered all of Dillard's contentions on this appeal and have found
    them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

    You might also like