Bartleson-Burton v. Macys Corporate Office

D. Nevada

Bartleson-Burton v. Macys Corporate Office

DecidedDecember 13, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-02056

StatusUnknown

This text of Bartleson-Burton v. Macys Corporate Office (Bartleson-Burton v. Macys Corporate Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartleson-Burton v. Macys Corporate Office, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CHAUNA BARTLESON-BURTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-02056-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8] v. 9] MACY’S CORPORATE OFFICE, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 12] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Pending before the Court is 13] Plaintiff's complaint, Docket No. 1-1, which must be screened pursuant to § 1915(e). 14 An employment plaintiff must administratively exhaust her remedies before filing suit. 15] See, e.g., You v. Longs Drugs Stores Cal., LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1248-49 (D. Haw. 2013). 16] The plaintiff must attach to her complaint the right to sue letter issued in relation to those administrative proceedings. See, e.g., Delaney v. Lynwood Unified School Dist., 2008 WL 18] 11338726, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2008); Docket No. 1-1 at 5 “Note: Attach a copy of the Notice of Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to this complaint” 20|| (emphasis in original)). In this case, Plaintiff references receiving a right to sue letter, but she did 21|| not attach it to her complaint. Docket No. 1-1 at 5. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff must file on the docket a copy of the right to sue letter that she 23|| received no later than January 12, 2023. Failure to comply with this order may result in the recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 13, 2022 27 re = Nancy J. Ko 28 United States Magistrate Judge

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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CHAUNA BARTLESON-BURTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-02056-CDS-NJK 7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8] v. 9] MACY’S CORPORATE OFFICE, 10 Defendant(s). 11 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 12] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. Pending before the Court is 13] Plaintiff's complaint, Docket No. 1-1, which must be screened pursuant to § 1915(e). 14 An employment plaintiff must administratively exhaust her remedies before filing suit. 15] See, e.g., You v. Longs Drugs Stores Cal., LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1248-49 (D. Haw. 2013). 16] The plaintiff must attach to her complaint the right to sue letter issued in relation to those administrative proceedings. See, e.g., Delaney v. Lynwood Unified School Dist., 2008 WL 18] 11338726, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2008); Docket No. 1-1 at 5 “Note: Attach a copy of the Notice of Right to Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to this complaint” 20|| (emphasis in original)). In this case, Plaintiff references receiving a right to sue letter, but she did 21|| not attach it to her complaint. Docket No. 1-1 at 5. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff must file on the docket a copy of the right to sue letter that she 23|| received no later than January 12, 2023. Failure to comply with this order may result in the recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 13, 2022 27 re = Nancy J. Ko 28 United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bartleson-Burton v. Macys Corporate Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartleson-burton-v-macys-corporate-office-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack