Stevens v. Siemens Mobility

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/2/2018 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DISMISSING 1 Complaint because it does not sufficiently state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions given above. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAY STEVENS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-01065 TLN AC (PS)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

SIEMENS MOBILITY and SUPERIOR
GROUP,
Defendants.

17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the

18

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed in forma

19

pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be granted.

21
22

I. SCREENING
The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally

23

“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

24

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

25

Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not the complaint is frivolous, by drafting

26

the complaint so that it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”).

27

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-

28

policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.
1

1

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and

2

plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this

3

court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled

4

to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief

5

sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in

7

the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200),

8

Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

9

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

10

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

11

court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they

12

are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the

13

plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von

14

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

15

denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

16

The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint

17

states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court

18

must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must

19

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a

20

less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

21

(1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable

22

inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,

23

624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice

24

to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

25

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

26

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to

27

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has

28

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
2

1

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

2

678.  A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity

3

to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.

4

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in

5

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).

6

A. The Complaint

7

Plaintiff brings suit against Siemens Mobility and Superior Group under Title VII of the

8

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). ECF No. 1

9

at 2-4. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be premised on a denial of employment due to a past

10

criminal conviction. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant Superior Group did an

11

employment screening for Siemens, and that “Siemens administration facially-neutral policy or

12

procedures specifically, criminal procedures, policies that disproportionately afects [sic.] plaintiff

13

who is African American policy is job related for position in question and consistent with

14

business necessity.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff further alleges that “criminal conviction is not job

15

related” and that “alternative employment practice that serves the employee legitimate goal

16

effected as the challenge practice.” Id. Plaintiff seeks earning of potential wages and punitive

17

damages for “failure to hire with criminal conviction.”

18

B. Analysis

19

The complaint does not contain facts supporting any cognizable legal claim against any

20

defendant. Plaintiff, who has previously brought a similar action in this district, has been

21

cautioned that in general “employers are free to refuse to hire applicants with any criminal record

22

without violating Title VII or the ADEA, even if plaintiff personally disagrees with the relevance

23

of such a requirement for the position he seeks.” Stevens v. IMKO Workforce Sols., No. 217-cv-

24

1026-MCE-KJN-PS, 2017 WL 4284639, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2017). Additionally, plaintiff

25

has previously been warned that the conclusory allegation that his rejection on the basis of

26

criminal history was pretext for racial discrimination, unsupported by specific factual allegations

27

demonstrating pretext, is not sufficient to state a claim. Id.

28

The complaint now before the court does not clearly state allegations that support any
3

1

legal claim. In this case, plaintiff fails to assert facts to support his belief that his failure to be

2

hired was due to his criminal conviction. Even if he had alleged such facts, they would fail to

3

state a claim for relief under any employment discrimination statute. Moreover, plaintiff does not

4

allege facts demonstrating a basis for his belief that rejection on the basis of his criminal

5

conviction was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff’s complaint makes only the

6

conclusory assertion that his criminal conviction was not work related, but he does not assert any

7

facts related to how he was otherwise qualified for the position(s) at issue. Plaintiff alleges no

8

facts whatsoever to support his ADEA claim. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must provide a clear

9

recitation of the facts supporting his claims, including what legal harm he alleges was done and

10
11
12

by whom, as well as allegations of facts supporting his claims of discrimination.
II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts

13

establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction. In addition, it must contain a short and plain

14

statement of plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially

15

numbered paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each

16

paragraph having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the

17

complaint. Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where

18

possible. Rule 10(b). As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their

19

complaint in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor

20

(Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.

21

Plaintiff must avoid excessive repetition of the same allegations. Plaintiff must avoid

22

narrative and storytelling. That is, the complaint should not include every detail of what

23

happened, nor recount the details of conversations (unless necessary to establish the claim), nor

24

give a running account of plaintiff’s hopes and thoughts. Rather, the amended complaint should

25

contain only those facts needed to show how the defendant legally wronged the plaintiff.

26

The amended complaint must not force the court and the defendants to guess at what is

27

being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)

28

(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what
4

1

facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). The amended

2

complaint must not require the court to spend its time “preparing the ‘short and plain statement’

3

which Rule 8 obligated plaintiffs to submit.” Id. at 1180. The amended complaint must not

4

require the court and defendants to prepare lengthy outlines “to determine who is being sued for

5

what.” Id. at 1179.

6

Also, the amended complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s

7

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without

8

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended

9

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline

10

Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009) (“[n]ormally, an amended complaint

11

supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &

12

Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

13

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

14

alleged.

15
16

III. PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY
The court cannot tell from plaintiff’s complaint what legal harm was done to him, and

17

what the facts are to support his claims of discrimination. The court is dismissing plaintiff’s

18

complaint, but allowing him to submit an amended complaint within 30 days of this order. If

19

plaintiff chooses to submit an amended complaint, it must clearly state who did what to him, and

20

why he believes he should be able to get legal relief. Plaintiff needs to tell the court, in simple

21

terms, what laws he believes were violated, who he believes violated them, why he believes they

22

were violated, and how the violations impacted him. Without this information, the court cannot

23

tell whether plaintiff has a cognizable claim sufficient to pass screening. If plaintiff does not

24

submit an amended complaint by the deadline, the undersigned will recommend that the case be

25

dismissed.

26
27
28

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;
5

1
2

2. The complaint (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED because it does not sufficiently state a
cognizable claim; and

3

3. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint that

4

names defendants who are amenable to suit, and which complies with the instructions

5

given above. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may

6

recommend that this action be dismissed.

7

DATED: May 2, 2018

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6