UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KATHERINE A. CURETON,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 17-2209 (RJL)
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary,
U.S_. Department of Homeland Security,
et al.,
FILED
SEP 26 2018
D'efendants.
\/\./V\/\./\/\/\./\./\./\/
Clork. U.S. D|strict & Bankruptcy
Courts tor the District of Columbla
+¢.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
September §§ , 2018 [Dkt. # 6]
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, sues the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) and several DHS employees, claiming reprisal for engaging in protected activity
under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e The complaint is far from clear
but stems from an alleged negative reference that “management officials” of the Office of
Chief Financial Officer (“OCFO”) provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) as part of a pre-employment screening investigation Compl. 1 III.
Pending is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 6] (“Defs.’ Mot.”) under Rule
lZ(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Which plaintiff has opposed. See Pl.’s
Opp’n to Def.’s l\/Iot. to Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] (“Opp’n”). Defendants contend that plaintiff
failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies and has otherwise failed to plead
sufficiently under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition,
defendants contend that dismissal of all named defendants except Dl-lS Secrctary Kirstjen
Nielsen is required. Plaintiffhas filed an unfocused opposition recounting events that were
the subject of her previous employment discrimination cases in this court. See Careton v.
Nz`elsen, 304 F. Supp. 3d 102 (D.D.C. 20l8), appeal alisml`ssea’, No. 18-5l04, 2018 WL
4099617 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 20l8) (“Carelon I]"); Carelc)n v. Da/ce, 272 F. Supp. 3d 56
(D.D.C. 2017), appeal dismissed sub nom. Carelon v. Nielsen, No. 17-5251, 2018 WL
4154788 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2018) (“Carel'on [”). For the reasons explained below,
defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff claims generally “Employment Discrimination Based upon Reprisal,
previous EEO activity during federal employment 9/2013, 8/2015, 2/2016.” Compl. 11 ll.
A. She “believes she has been subjected to intentional discrimination and treated unfairly
by DHS” since September 16, 2013, when she filed an age discrimination claim “while
employed by DHS” at the OCFO. Opp’n at l; see also Compl. at 5.l ln this case, plaintiff
reasserts a retaliation claim that was dismissed in 2017 for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Defs.’ l\/lot. at 2 (citing Carel'on [). The relevant facts follow.
A. Adverse Fitness Decision
On March 14, 2016, plaintiff was offered the full-time position of Senior Records
l\/lanager/Project l\/lanager with a federal contractor, BarnAllen "l`echnologies, lnc. rl`hc
position was assigned to lCE’s Agency Records l\/lanagement project located at an ICE
' All page citations are those automatically assigned by the Cl\/l/ECF system.
facility in Washington, D.C. See Compl. Attachments |:Dl