Ford v. Kern High School District ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OTHA FORD, Case No. 1:22-cv-00159-JLT-BAK 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Otha Ford (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, 19 filed on February 7, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court 23 determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 24 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 25 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 26 (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); 27 Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 1 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis 2 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 3 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court exercises its discretion to 4 screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 5 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 6 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 7 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same 8 pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a 9 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. 10 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 11 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 13 544, 555 (2007)). 14 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 15 accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 16 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 17 a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 18 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 19 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. (quoting 20 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for 21 the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 22 alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 23 II. 24 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 25 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 26 the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 27 Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) Kern High School District; (2) John Oliver, 1 employee for the Kern High School District; (4) Allen Paradise, identified as a human resources 2 employee; and (5) Alfonso Valdez, identified as an Assistant Director. (Compl. 1-3,1 ECF No. 3 1.) 4 Under basis of jurisdiction, Plaintiff checks the boxes for both diversity jurisdiction, and 5 for federal question jurisdiction. (Compl. 3.) When asked to list the federal basis for 6 jurisdiction, Plaintiff states: “TORT 9 years of medical negligence denied for my back injury 7 [illegible] Systemic Discrimination at the work place . . . illegal motives d[ue] to a worker’s 8 comp claim they keep denying.” (Compl. 4 (capitalization altered). 9 Plaintiff only identifies Defendant Kern High School as a citizen of California. (Compl. 10 4-5.) Under amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff states she is 11 asking for pain and suffering in the amount of $10,000,000, for the “verbal threats of been killed 12 by Defendant Head Employees.” (Compl. 5.) 13 Under statement of claim, Plaintiff states: “Discrimination/Harassment/Prejudice,” “Place 14 of Employment for Kern High School District since 1/23/13 and has continued and still is going 15 on 9/27/21.” (Compl. 5.) Under requested relief, Plaintiff states: “Actual damages for Mental & 16 Emotional Distress, Negligence claims, consequential damage and malice intentional harm pain 17 and suffering, defamation of character, tort, sexual harassment, picture of monkeys.” (Compl. 18 6.) 19 Plaintiff attaches a picture as an exhibit that appears to be a box for a roll of tissue paper 20 with a cartoon drawing of a monkey on it. (Compl. 7.) On the page, Plaintiff has written: “THE 21 Monkey on my suppl[y] box!!!! . . . I am the only Black person there?? . . . Plus I got pictures of 22 Human Feces on the Bathroom Wall.” (Compl. 7.) 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 4 Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 5 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must 6 simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which 7 it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citation and internal 8 quotation marks omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals 9 of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 10 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). This is because, while factual allegations are accepted 11 as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57; Moss v. U.S. 12 Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 13 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 14 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 15 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 16 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 17 U.S. at 556). 18 Most of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory statements alleging some form of 19 discrimination. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain enough factual details 20 to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that any named Defendants are liable for 21 any misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Most significantly, after naming the individual 22 Defendants, Plaintiff does not state any specific actions that any named Defendants took relating 23 to the alleged discrimination or other misconduct. Plaintiff does not mention any of the 24 individual Defendants again after naming them as Defendants. 25 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 26 8(a)(2). The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to allow Plaintiff to 27 provide additional and specific factual details to the Court. 1 B. Legal Standards Pertaining to Discrimination 2 Under Title VII, an employer is prohibited from discriminating against any individual 3 because of the individual’s race or color. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 4 1019, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006). To establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff 5 must show the following: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for 6 the position; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated 7 individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably. Fonseca v. Sysco Food 8 Services of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 Plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient facts and fails to state any cognizable claim. 10 IV. 11 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 13 The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to cure the above-identified 14 deficiencies to the extent she is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 15 (9th Cir. 2000). 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 17 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 18 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 19 raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 20 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 21 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 22 “buckshot” complaints). 23 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 24 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be 25 “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 26 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days, and is subject to the 27 twenty-five (25) page limit set forth above. 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 3 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 4 first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 5 order; 6 3. The first amended complaint, including attachments, shall not exceed twenty-five 7 (25) pages in length; and 8 4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 9 the Court will recommend to the district judge that this action be dismissed, with 10 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and for failure to 11 state a claim. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 14 | Dated: _ February 11, 2022 Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28