Rega v. Vanguard Integrity Professionals, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue summons to Defendants and deliver the same to the U.S. Marshal for service. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USM - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

BARBARA J. REGA,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 2. On January 19, 2017, the Court granted the

18

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 8. The Court then screened Plaintiff’s

19

complaint pursuant to § 1915(e), and found that Plaintiff failed to allege that her EEOC proceedings

20

had concluded. See id. at 3. As such, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Id.

21

On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint attaching EEOC right to sue letters.

22

Docket No. 9 at 28-29. Accordingly, the concern identified by the Court previously has been

23

addressed.

11

Plaintiff(s),

12

vs.

13

VANGUARD INTEGRITY PROFESSIONALS,
INC., et al.,

14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:17-cv-00110-JAD-NJK
ORDER

24

The Court will therefore screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint further to determine if she

25

states a claim for relief, applying the standards previously identified in Docket No. 8. The amended

26

complaint brings a claim for, inter alia, retaliation under Title VII. Docket No. 9 at 22.

27

sufficiently allege a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of Title VII to survive a § 1915

28

screening, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that he or she committed a protected act, such as complaining

To

1

about discriminatory practices; (2) that he or she suffered adverse employment action; and (3) that

2

there is a causal connection between the employee’s action and the adverse employment action. See,

3

e.g., Bem v. Clark County School Dist., 2015 WL 300373, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015). Here,

4

Plaintiff alleges that she complained of discriminatory treatment, that her employment was thereafter

5

terminated, and that the termination was retaliation for engaging in protected activity. See, e.g.,

6

Docket No. 9 at ¶¶ 15, 19, 25, 32, 136. Plaintiff has, therefore, stated a retaliation claim.1

7

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

8

1.

The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons to Defendants and deliver the same to

9

the U.S. Marshal for service. Plaintiff shall have twenty days in which to furnish the

10

U.S. Marshal with the required Form USM-285. Within twenty days after receiving

11

from the U.S. Marshal a copy of the Form USM-285, showing whether service has

12

been accomplished, Plaintiff must file a notice with the court identifying whether

13

Defendants were served. If Plaintiff wishes to have service again attempted on an

14

unserved defendant, a motion must be filed identifying the unserved defendant and

15

specifying a more detailed name and/or address for said defendant, or whether some

16

other manner of service should be attempted. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure, service must be accomplished within 90 days from the date

18

this order is entered.

19

Dated: March 6, 2017

20
21
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff states a claim as to retaliation, it declines to further
screen her complaint. See, e.g., Bem, 2015 WL 300373, at *3 n.1. Nothing herein precludes
Defendants from filing a motion to dismiss as to any claim brought by Plaintiff. See, e.g., id.
-2-