(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CASSANDRA B. CHARLES, No. 2:19-cv-02555 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted. 22 I. SCREENING 23 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 26 Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting 27 the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). 28 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules- 1 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure. 2 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and 3 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this 4 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled 5 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief 6 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in 8 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), 9 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 13 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the 14 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von 15 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 16 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 17 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint 18 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court 19 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must 20 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a 21 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 22 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 23 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 24 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice 25 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 27 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to 28 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has 1 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 2 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 3 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity 4 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v. 5 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in 6 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc). 7 A. The Complaint 8 Plaintiff brings suit against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and multiple other 9 federal agencies. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s 331-page complaint is a compilation of multiple 10 complaint forms and subpoena forms. Id. Each title page indicates that this suit is brought under 11 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination, and the box “failure to 12 employ me” is checked. See, e.g., Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that between January and August of 13 2019, she applied for 19 jobs on USAJOBS.COM, submitting her DD214, college transcripts, 14 writing sample, SF50, SF15, and statement of disability from the social security office. Id. at 54. 15 Plaintiff alleges that in response to all 19 applications she received a notice from human resources 16 that she was not eligible for the position. Id. The education requirement for each job was a 17 Bachelor of Science and/or a Master’s degree, and plaintiff holds both a Bachelor of Science and 18 a Master of Arts degree. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the human resources departments in each 19 agency committed age discrimination by failing to pass her applications along to the hiring 20 manager for consideration. Id. Plaintiff was born in 1957. Id. at 72. 21 B. Analysis 22 The court must reject plaintiff’s complaint because it does not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 8 and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint does not contain a 24 “short and plain” statement setting forth the basis for plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, even though 25 this is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). First, plaintiff’s 331-page complaint appears to be 26 a combination of multiple different complaints, with pages mixed together, making it difficult to 27 decipher. The disjointed nature of the complaint does not meet the requirements of Rule 8 28 //// 1 because it is difficult to comprehend and because it is not specific with respect to which 2 allegations apply to which defendants. 3 Second, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Title VII by practicing age 4 discrimination in failing to hire her, but she does not allege a single fact other than her age to 5 demonstrate a discriminatory motive. A prima facie case of discriminatory failure to hire requires 6 a showing that: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) 7 she was rejected despite her qualification; and (4) the position remained open. McDonnell 8 Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Plaintiff does not make the required 9 allegations. Although she alleges that she met the educational requirements for each job, it is not 10 clear the she met all other requirements for each job at issue. Further, plaintiff does not allege 11 facts demonstrating that each job remained open after she was rejected. Accordingly, the 12 complaint does not state a prima facie claim for age discrimination under Title VII. 13 II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 14 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must contain a short 15 and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims as to each defendant. The allegations of the complaint 16 must be set forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one 17 greater than the one before, each paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number 18 being repeated anywhere in the complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of 19 circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help 20 plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 21 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at 22 www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms. 23 The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is 24 being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) 25 (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what 26 facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended 27 complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’ 28 which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not 1 require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for 2 what.” Id. at 1179. 3 Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s 4 amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 5 reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 6 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline 7 Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint 8 supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & 9 Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 10 original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 11 alleged. Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support her claim. 12 III. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY 13 It is not clear that this case can proceed in federal court. You do not allege enough facts 14 to make a claim for age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Also, your 331- 15 page complaint is too long and appears to consist of multiple complaints put together, which 16 makes it difficult to understand. You need to submit one complaint, with clear allegations against 17 each individual defendant. 18 You are being given 30 days to submit an amended complaint. If you submit an amended 19 complaint, it needs to explain in simple terms what laws or legal rights of yours were violated, by 20 whom and how, and how those violations impacted you. The complaint must state enough facts 21 to support your legal claim: you must state facts demonstrating as to each alleged instance of 22 discriminatory failure to hire that (1) you belonged to a protected class; (2) you met all 23 qualifications for the position; (3) you were rejected despite your qualifications; and (4) the 24 position remained open after you were rejected. If you do not submit an amended complaint by 25 the deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be dismissed. 26 IV. CONCLUSION 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 1 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that 2 names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions 3 given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may 4 recommend that this action be dismissed. 5 | DATED: December 30, 2019 ~ 6 Attu —Clone_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28