Shetty v. Cisco Systems

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 13 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (denying as moot docket nos.: 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 ). Amended Pleadings due by 5/8/2017.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHRUTI SHETTY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CISCO SYSTEMS, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.16-cv-06012-HSG ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Re: Dkt. No. 13 Plaintiff Shruti Shetty, representing herself, has filed a complaint against Cisco Systems, 12 13 purportedly brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment 14 discrimination. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 13. 15 I. INTRODUCTION The Court may authorize the commencement of a civil action in forma pauperis if it is 16 17 satisfied that the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to pursue the action and 18 that her action is not frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 19 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds she is 20 unable to pay the full amount of fees, costs or give security. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 (“An 21 affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay 22 the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”). Nevertheless, the Court finds that the 23 action is frivolous and accordingly DENIES the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 II. 25 LEGAL STANDARD Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the Court review an in forma pauperis complaint before 26 directing the United States Marshal to serve the complaint. Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234 & n.8. 27 The Court must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 1 2 relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 4 2012) (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127–31 (9th Cir. 2000)). The complaint must 5 include a “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, 6 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff must provide the grounds that entitle her to relief. 8 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court 9 construes her pleadings liberally and affords her the benefit of any doubt. Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 be construed so as to do justice.”). The Court is not, however, required to accept as true 12 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. 13 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 III. 15 ANALYSIS As presently drafted, the complaint is difficult to follow and fails to set forth any facts that 16 would support a cognizable claim. Plaintiff provides twenty, single-spaced pages of ambiguous 17 grievances, but does not identify the claims she is asserting. Another serious problem is that she 18 does not identify the specific actor or actors responsible. She cites various conduct inconsistently 19 attributed to foreign government entities, private actors, and Defendant Cisco Systems. As such, 20 the complaint violates Rule 8’s directive that “[e]ach allegation [] be simple, concise, and direct.” 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 22 From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff seems to allege that Cisco Systems stole her 23 intellectual property, erroneously withheld a month’s pay following her resignation, and facilitated 24 both the physical injury and reputational damage she has suffered over the past two years. While 25 the complaint alleges “employment discrimination,” it is not clear if, or when, Plaintiff alleges she 26 was employed by Cisco. Plaintiff also alleges that Cisco’s actions were motivated by her “ethnic 27 roots, race, and [] gender.” Dkt. No. 1 at 17. But there is no fact alleged in the complaint that 28 plausibly reflects discriminatory motive or otherwise suggests that Cisco attacked her because of 2 1 her nationality, ethnicity, race, or gender. Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s assertion is 2 conclusory and speculative, and insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 3 “Although a pro se litigant . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes [her] 4 pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a 5 defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. United States Dep’t of 6 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet that 7 minimum threshold and accordingly DENIES her request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 8 and DISMISSES her complaint. 9 IV. 10 CONCLUSION Despite these deficiencies, the Court cannot say at this stage that amending the complaint United States District Court Northern District of California 11 would be futile. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] pro se 12 litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to 13 dismissal of the action.”). Plaintiff may still be able to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. 14 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by no later than May 8, 2017. 15 In the amended complaint, Plaintiff should clearly identify: (1) each legal claim; (2) the facts 16 supporting each claim; and (3) the defendant against whom the claim is alleged. Plaintiff does not 17 need to re-file a financial affidavit with her amended complaint, because the Court has already 18 found that she has established her inability to pay the filing fees. But failure to file an amended 19 complaint by this deadline may result in the dismissal of the action in its entirety without further 20 leave to amend. In addition, Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed if she does not 21 correct the deficiencies the Court has identified in this order. 22 The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: 4/10/2017 25 26 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 27 28 3

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?