Ball v. NC Santa FE LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 WILLIAM H. BALL, Case No. 2:24-cv-01456-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. [Docket Nos. 1, 3] 9 NC SANTA FE LLC, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 12 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has also filed an amended 13 complaint. Docket No. 8. 14 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 15 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 16 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 17 in forma pauperis will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 18 II. Screening the Complaint 19 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 20 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 21 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 22 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 23 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 24 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 25 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 26 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 28 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 1 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 2 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 4 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 5 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 6 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 7 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 8 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 9 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 10 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 11 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 12 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 13 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 14 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 15 Plaintiff’s amended complaint brings a claim for age-related employment discrimination. 16 Federal law makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire an individual based on the 17 individual’s age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To establish prima facie case of age discrimination in 18 this context, a plaintiff must generally show that he was (1) at least 40 years old, (2) qualified for 19 the job, and (3) a younger person with similar or inferior qualifications was hired. See Cotton v. 20 City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987). This final element is at times treated with 21 some flexibility. Cf. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 1996). Courts 22 have allowed non-hiring claims to proceed at the pleadings stage on a theory that the position 23 remained unfilled while the employer waited for a younger qualified applicant to apply. See 24 Fellows v. Scottsdale OP CO LLC, 2019 WL 1959931, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 2, 2019); see also 25 Chambra v. Chevron Int’l Exploration & Production, 2006 WL 2850032, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 26 2006). 27 Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that he is over 40 years of age, that he was qualified 28 for the position to which he applied, and that he was not given the job (or even an interview) while 1 the position was left unfilled. See Docket No. 8 at 1-2. Although these allegations are thin, 2 particularly as to the final element of the prima facie case, they suffice to proceed past the 3 screening stage given Plaintiff’s pro se status.1 4 III. Conclusion 5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. 7 Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee of $402. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain 8 this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 9 costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma 10 pauperis does not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government 11 expense. 12 2. Because Defendant has already appeared without contesting service and the Court is 13 screening the amended complaint, it does not appear that service through the United 14 States Marshal is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(B). Defendant must respond to 15 the amended complaint within 21 days of the issuance of this order. 16 3. Because Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 3) was filed before the amended 17 complaint, it is DENIED without prejudice. 18 4. From this point forward, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or, if appearance has 19 been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion, or 20 other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with 21 the original papers submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and 22 correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendants or counsel for Defendants. The 23 1 The Court screens the complaint without the benefit of the adversarial process. Buchheit 24 v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012). Nothing in this order should be construed as precluding the filing of a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 25 A complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage if it fails to state “a claim on 26 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Hence, it suffices to survive screening that Plaintiff has stated one claim. See, e.g., Bem v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 27 2015 WL 300373, at *3 n.1 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015). It appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to bring at least one other claim under state law. The Court express no opinion as to the sufficiency 28 of the pleading as to any claim other than the federal age-discrimination claim addressed above. ] Court may disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that 2 has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate 3 Judge, or the Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 10, 2024 Nancy J. Koppe 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