Peter Shanks v. John E. Potter ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 1, 2011
No. 11-10426
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00045-JRH-WLB
PETER SHANKS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN E. POTTER,
Postmaster General USPS,
FREDRIC V. ROLAND,
President, National Letter Carriers,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(December 1, 2011)
Before CARNES, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Shanks appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging
hybrid § 301/fair representation claims under the Labor Management Relations
Act (LMRA) and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) against
John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service (USPS),
and Fredric V. Rolando, President of the National Association of Letter Carriers
(NALC). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in
part.
I.
Shanks, a former letter carrier, was fired on August 1, 2008, after he took
unapproved leave to care for his ailing wife. Under the terms of the collective
bargaining agreement between the USPS and the NALC, Shanks challenged his
termination through the grievance process. On February 5, 2009, he received
notice of the final decision upholding his termination. Shanks filed the instant
complaint on March 31, 2010 alleging that his termination violated the FMLA,
and that the USPS breached the collective bargaining agreement and the NALC
breached its duty of fair representation, which constituted a hybrid §301/fair
representation claim under the LMRA. Conducting the required screening under
2
the Prisoner’s Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the district
court concluded that the hybrid §301/fair representation claims were due to be
dismissed as untimely because Shanks had filed his complaint more than six
months after he learned of the grievance process’s final decision. The court also
dismissed the claim against Rolando because an individual was not the proper
defendant in a hybrid § 301/fair representation action. The district court then
granted Potter’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
because Shanks had not shown that he was an “eligible employee” under the
FMLA. This is Shanks’s appeal.1
II.
We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of an in forma
pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
viewing the allegations in the complaint as true. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249,
1252 (11th Cir. 2008). The same standards governing dismissals under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) apply to dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Id.
Section 301(a) of the LMRA provides:
1
Shanks failed to object to the magistrate judge’s orders denying his motion for
appointment of counsel and granting Potter’s motion to stay discovery. Thus, he has waived the
right to appeal those issues here. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of Shanks’s appeal. Smith v.
Sch. Bd. of Orange Cty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
3
Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor
organization representing employees in an industry affecting
commerce . . . may be brought in any district court of the United
States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount
in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.
29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Where an employee sues the employer for breach of the
collective bargaining agreement and the union for breach of the union’s duty of
fair representation, the claims are known as hybrid § 301/fair representation
claims. See DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164-65 (1983).
There is a six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301/fair
representation claims. See id. at 169-71; Bartholomew v. AGL Resources, Inc.,
361 F.3d 1333, 1342 (11th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held
that state law claims are preempted by LMRA § 301 “when resolution of a
state-law claim is substantially dependent upon analysis of the terms of an
agreement made between the parties in a labor contract.” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v.
Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985).
Here, Shanks filed the instant complaint more than one year after receiving
notice of the grievance process’s final decision. Thus, his hybrid § 301/fair
representation claims were time-barred.2
2
Any attempts to recast those claims as state law claims must fail, as any state law
claims based upon the collective bargaining agreement are preempted by § 301. See Allis-
Chalmers, 471 U.S. at 220.
4
II
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Redland Co. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 568 F.3d 1232, 1234 (11th Cir.
2009).
We follow a two-pronged approach in evaluating the sufficiency of a
complaint: the court should (1) eliminate any allegations in the complaint that are
mere legal conclusions, and (2) assume the veracity of the well-pleaded factual
allegations and determine whether they “plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009).
“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted).
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). But this liberal construction does
not mean that the court has a duty to re-write the complaint. Snow v. DirecTV,
Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
5
For purposes of the FMLA, an “eligible employee” is “an employee who has
been employed ... (i) for at least 12 months by the employer with respect to whom
leave is requested under section 2612 of this title; and (ii) for at least 1,250 hours
of service with such employer during the previous 12-month period.” 29 U.S.C.A.
§ 2611(2)(A)(i), (ii).
Here, the district court properly dismissed Shanks’s FMLA claims because
Shanks failed to show that he was an FMLA-eligible employee at the time that he
sought to take leave. By not adequately alleging in his complaint that he was
entitled to FMLA leave at the time that he attempted to take it, Shanks has failed
to state an FMLA claim. See Strickland, 239 F.3d at 1207; O’Connor, 200 F.3d at
1353-54.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
6