Hodge v. Home Deot et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 6 ). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 5 ) for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this case. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 9/3/2024. (KJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Najib A. Hodge,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Home Depot, et al.,

13

No. CV-24-02171-PHX-JJT
ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

At issue is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying

16

Fees or Costs (Doc. 6). Having determined that Plaintiff is unable to pay the Court’s fees,

17

the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application. However, upon screening Plaintiff’s Amended

18

Complaint (Doc. 5, “Am. Compl.”), the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to

19

state a claim.

20

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

21

For cases proceeding in forma pauperis, Congress provided that a district court “shall

22

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue”

23

or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which

24

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

25

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

26

proceedings. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that

27

section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis

28

1

complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. at 1127. The Court must therefore dismiss an in

2

forma pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.

3

Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the

4

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Rule further instructs that “[e]ach

5

allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. 8(d)(1). The complaint must

6

contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible

7

on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

8

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

9

II.

ANALYSIS

10

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he visited a Home Depot store in

11

Phoenix and was denied service due to his race. (Am. Compl. at 2–4.) He further alleges that

12

he filed a complaint with Home Depot’s “corporate team,” which responded unhelpfully.

13

(Am. Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff brings a single claim of racial discrimination under Title II of

14

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Am. Compl. at 1–6.)

15

Title II provides that “[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment

16

of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place

17

of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation

18

on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a). The statute

19

defines “place of public accommodation” as lodgings, restaurants, gas stations, and

20

entertainment facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b); Ford v. Surprise Fam. Urgent Care Ctr., LLC,

21

No. CV 10-1920-PHX-SRB, 2011 WL 13137866, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 6, 2011). Courts

22

construe this list narrowly and have consistently declined to expand the scope of the statute

23

beyond the facilities specifically enumerated. Dragonas v. Macerich, No. CV-20-01648-

24

PHX-MTL, 2021 WL 3912853, at *7 (D. Ariz. Sept. 1, 2021).

25

Plaintiff has not alleged that the store at issue is a lodging, restaurant, gas station, or

26

entertainment facility, or any facility exhaustively enumerated in Title II; nor could he, as

27

Home Depot is a hardware store. The Court must therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s claim because

28

Title II is not applicable. If a defective complaint can be cured, the plaintiff is entitled to

-2-

1

amend the complaint before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127–30. But in

2

this case, it does not appear that Plaintiff can cure the defect in his Title II claim.

3
4
5
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 5)
for failure to state a claim.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this case.

8

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2024.

9
10

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-