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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?