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)

Download PDF
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-

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?