Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors

E.D. California

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors

DecidedFebruary 5, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-01162

StatusUnknown

This text of Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors (Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERGIO ALVAREZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01162-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 HARDER MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 15 RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Defendant. 16 (Docs. 1, 11) 17 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 action. (Docs. 1, 9.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that this action be 20 dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff initiated this action on August 4, 2023. (Doc. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s 23 motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 30, 2023. (Doc. 9.) On February 23, 2024, 24 Plaintiff filed an unsigned witness statement. (Doc. 10.) On December 17, 2024, the Court 25 screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and determined that the 26 complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 27 (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty (30) days of service of the 28 1 Court’s order. (Id.) Plaintiff was expressly warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint 2 in compliance with the Court’s order, then the Court would recommend dismissal of this action. 3 (Id. at 6.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff has not 4 complied with the Court’s order. The Court therefore will recommend dismissal of this action. 5 II. Failure to State a Claim 6 A. Screening Requirement and Standard 7 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 8 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 9 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 10 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 12 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 13 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 14 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 16 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 17 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 18 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 20 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 21 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 22 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 23 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 24 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 25 B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 26 Plaintiff drafted his complaint using the form provided by this Court. Plaintiff does not 27 identify whether the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction is either federal question or diversity of 28 citizenship, but writes under “If the Basis for Jurisdiction Is Diversity of Citizenship” that 1 Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez is a citizen of the State of California and that Defendant Harder 2 Mechanical Contractors has its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon. (Doc. 1 at 3-5.) 3 In the section in which he is asked to specify the amount in controversy, Plaintiff states, 4 “$250,000… I was discrimination at work and lost the Job and Finance became real bad.” (Doc. 5 1 at 5.) 6 In the Statement of Claim section, Plaintiff writes “I lost my job – including my wages & 7 I was discriminated against in front of my co-worker. Due to loss of employment I fell behind on 8 my household expenses.” (Id.) As relief, Plaintiff states “Due to being discriminated at work & 9 in front of my co-worker I felt humiliated, belittled, & that caused me to feel very stressed 10 mentally & it is still affecting me today mentally & emotionally.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff further 11 attached an EEOC determination of charge to the complaint. (Id. at 7-11.) 12 C. Discussion 13 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 14 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 15 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 16 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 17 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 19 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 20 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 21 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a plain statement of his claims. While short, Plaintiff’s 22 complaint does not clearly state what happened. Although Plaintiff broadly alleges 23 discrimination, he does not provide any details about the nature of the discrimination or 24 circumstances of the discrimination beyond that it occurred “in front of [his] co-worker.” (Doc. 25 1 at 5.) He also does not include sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is 26 plausible on its face. 27 “The court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 28 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, 1 et al., No. 2:21-cv-00997-CKD, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (citing Neitzke v. 2 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). “The critical inquiry is whether a ... claim, however 3 inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, 4 Plaintiff appears to support his claims by broadly asserting that he was discriminated against in 5 front of a coworker. (Doc. 1 at 5.) These allegations and statements demonstrate that Plaintiff’s 6 complaint lacks an arguable legal or factual basis, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 7 complaint to remedy those defects. (See Docs. 1, 11.) 8 III. Failure to Obey a Court Order 9 A. Legal Standard 10 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SERGIO ALVAREZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-01162-BAM 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 13 v. FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 HARDER MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 15 RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Defendant. 16 (Docs. 1, 11) 17 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 action. (Docs. 1, 9.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that this action be 20 dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. 21 I. Background 22 Plaintiff initiated this action on August 4, 2023. (Doc. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s 23 motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 30, 2023. (Doc. 9.) On February 23, 2024, 24 Plaintiff filed an unsigned witness statement. (Doc. 10.) On December 17, 2024, the Court 25 screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and determined that the 26 complaint failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 27 (Doc. 11.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend within thirty (30) days of service of the 28 1 Court’s order. (Id.) Plaintiff was expressly warned that if he failed to file an amended complaint 2 in compliance with the Court’s order, then the Court would recommend dismissal of this action. 3 (Id. at 6.) The deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has passed and Plaintiff has not 4 complied with the Court’s order. The Court therefore will recommend dismissal of this action. 5 II. Failure to State a Claim 6 A. Screening Requirement and Standard 7 The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma 8 pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 9 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 10 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 11 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 12 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 13 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 14 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 15 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 16 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 17 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 18 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 20 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 21 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 22 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 23 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 24 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 25 B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 26 Plaintiff drafted his complaint using the form provided by this Court. Plaintiff does not 27 identify whether the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction is either federal question or diversity of 28 citizenship, but writes under “If the Basis for Jurisdiction Is Diversity of Citizenship” that 1 Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez is a citizen of the State of California and that Defendant Harder 2 Mechanical Contractors has its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon. (Doc. 1 at 3-5.) 3 In the section in which he is asked to specify the amount in controversy, Plaintiff states, 4 “$250,000… I was discrimination at work and lost the Job and Finance became real bad.” (Doc. 5 1 at 5.) 6 In the Statement of Claim section, Plaintiff writes “I lost my job – including my wages & 7 I was discriminated against in front of my co-worker. Due to loss of employment I fell behind on 8 my household expenses.” (Id.) As relief, Plaintiff states “Due to being discriminated at work & 9 in front of my co-worker I felt humiliated, belittled, & that caused me to feel very stressed 10 mentally & it is still affecting me today mentally & emotionally.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff further 11 attached an EEOC determination of charge to the complaint. (Id. at 7-11.) 12 C. Discussion 13 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 14 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 15 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 16 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 17 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 19 at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 20 not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557. 21 Plaintiff’s complaint is not a plain statement of his claims. While short, Plaintiff’s 22 complaint does not clearly state what happened. Although Plaintiff broadly alleges 23 discrimination, he does not provide any details about the nature of the discrimination or 24 circumstances of the discrimination beyond that it occurred “in front of [his] co-worker.” (Doc. 25 1 at 5.) He also does not include sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief that is 26 plausible on its face. 27 “The court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 28 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Howell v. Johnson, 1 et al., No. 2:21-cv-00997-CKD, 2021 WL 3602139, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (citing Neitzke v. 2 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). “The critical inquiry is whether a ... claim, however 3 inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, 4 Plaintiff appears to support his claims by broadly asserting that he was discriminated against in 5 front of a coworker. (Doc. 1 at 5.) These allegations and statements demonstrate that Plaintiff’s 6 complaint lacks an arguable legal or factual basis, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended 7 complaint to remedy those defects. (See Docs. 1, 11.) 8 III. Failure to Obey a Court Order 9 A. Legal Standard 10 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with these Rules or with 11 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . 12 within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 13 dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where 14 appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 15 court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, 16 failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 17 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. 18 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 19 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130–33 (9th Cir. 20 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order). 21 In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must consider several factors: (1) 22 the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its 23 docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 24 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 25 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 26 B. Discussion 27 Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is overdue. (See Doc. 11.) The action cannot 28 proceed without Plaintiff’s cooperation and compliance with the Court’s order. Moreover, the 1 Court cannot hold this case in abeyance awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. The Court 2 additionally cannot effectively manage its docket if Plaintiff ceases litigating his case. Thus, the 3 Court finds that both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 4 The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs in favor of dismissal, as a 5 presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action. 6 Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor usually weighs 7 against dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 8 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “this factor lends little support to a party whose 9 responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes 10 progress in that direction,” which is the case here. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. 11 Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 12 Finally, the Court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the Court’s order will result in 13 dismissal satisfies the “considerations of the alternatives” requirement. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 14 1262; Malone, 833 at 132–33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s December 17, 2024 15 screening order expressly warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply would result in a 16 recommendation for dismissal of this action. (Doc. 11 at 6.) Plaintiff had adequate warning that 17 dismissal could result from his noncompliance. 18 Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings there is little available to the Court that 19 would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from further 20 unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status in this action 21 indicates that monetary sanctions are of little use, and the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is 22 likely to have no effect given that Plaintiff has ceased litigating his case. 23 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 24 For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 25 based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order and for failure to state a claim. 26 The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to randomly assign a District Judge to 27 this matter. 28 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 1 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 2 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 3 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 4 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 5 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 6 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 7 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 9 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 10 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: February 4, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

572 F.3d 677 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

572 F.3d 962 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

J. Wilkerson v. B. Wheeler

772 F.3d 834 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Henderson v. Duncan

779 F.2d 1421 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alvarez v. Harder Mechanical Contractors, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-harder-mechanical-contractors-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack