Riley v. Acco Engineered Systems

Filing 9

SCREENING ORDER; ORDER Allowing Plaintiff's Complaint to Proceed and Directing Plaintiff to Complete and Return Enclosed Service Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 01/19/2023. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 USM Instructions)(Maldonado, C)

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EARL L. RILEY, III,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK
SCREENING ORDER
ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT TO PROCEED AND
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLETE
AND RETURN ENCLOSED SERVICE
DOCUMENTS
Doc. No. 1

17
18

This matter is before the court for screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff, Earl

19

L. Riley, III, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this discrimination action brought

20

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)

21

and under the general civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983. (Doc. No.1, Complaint).

22

Plaintiff, an African American, was hired by Defendant as a journeyman sheet metal worker. (Id.

23

at 2). Plaintiff alleges that while other sheet metal workers worked with partners, he was forced

24

to work alone on jobs that required more than one worker. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that he was

25

forced to quit his job when a picture of a money wearing construction gear and labeled “Sheet

26

Metal Worker” was posted on the office wall. (Id.). Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges he was

27

subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, harassed, and was constructively

28

discharged because of his race and ethnicity. (Id.). Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim of
1

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2
1

discrimination in violation of Title VII against defendants. See Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 753

2

(9th Cir. 2006) (citing Kang v. U. Lim Am., Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2002)); Bauer v. Bd.

3

of Supervisors, 44 Fed. Appx. 194, 199 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the Court will authorize service of

4

the complaint once Plaintiff returns the necessary forms.

5

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

6

1. This action may proceed against Defendant Acco Engineered Systems.

7

2. Service of the complaint is appropriate for Acco Engineered Systems.

8

3. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a USM-285 form, summonses, a Notice of

9

Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed

10

on December 17, 2021 (Doc. No. 1).

11

4. Within thirty (30) days of this Order, Plaintiff must complete the attached Notice of

12

Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the

13

following documents:

14

a. A completed summons for the Defendant;

15

b. a completed USM-285 form for the Defendant; and

16

c. two copies of the signed Complaint filed on December 17, 2021, (Doc. No. 1).

17

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendant and need not request waiver of

18

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the U.S.

19

Marshals Service to serve the above-named Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 4 without payment of costs by Plaintiff due to his in forma pauperis status.
6. Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this

21
22

action.

23
24
25

Dated:

January 19, 2023
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2