Ford v. Kern High School District

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 OTHA FORD, Case No. 1:22-cv-00159-JLT-BAK

12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 KERN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., (ECF No. 6)

15 Defendants. THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

16 17 Plaintiff Otha Ford (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 11, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 19 complaint and granted thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Currently 20 before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on March 16, 2022. (ECF No. 6.) 21 I. 22 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 Notwithstanding any filing fee, the court shall dismiss a case if at any time the Court 24 determines that the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which 25 relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 26 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) 27 (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 1 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United States, 70 2 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis 3 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 4 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). The Court exercises its discretion to 5 screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action to determine if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 6 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a 7 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 8 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same 9 pleading standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a 10 short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. R. 11 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 12 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 14 544, 555 (2007)). 15 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 16 accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 17 94 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, 18 a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] 19 complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops 20 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. (quoting 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual content for 22 the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 23 alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 24 II. 25 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 26 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 27 the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 resources employee; (2) John Olivent, identified as Director of “M.O.”; (3) Matt Despot, 2 identified as a supervisor; and (4) Alfonso Valdez, identified as an assistant director. (Compl. 1- 3 3,1 ECF No. 6.) 4 Under basis of jurisdiction, Plaintiff checks the boxes for both diversity jurisdiction, and 5 for federal question jurisdiction. (Compl. 3.) When asked to list the federal basis for 6 jurisdiction, Plaintiff states: “TORT 9 years of medical negligence denied for my back injury 7 [illegible] Systemic Discrimination at the work place . . . illegal motives d[ue] to a worker’s 8 comp claim they keep denying.” (Compl. 4 (capitalization altered). 9 Plaintiff claims diversity and federal question jurisdiction. (Compl. 3.) Plaintiff 10 identifies Kern High School as a citizen of California, but does not list any other Defendants’ 11 citizenship. (Compl. 4-5.) Under amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, 12 Plaintiff states “ ‘Tort’ discrimination/harassment/prejudice negligence emotional distress, 13 malice intentional harm pain and suffering defamation ‘monkey.’ ” (Compl. 5 (capitalization 14 altered).) 15 Under statement of claim, Plaintiff states: “They had a head supervisor threating to kill 16 me nothing was done. I reported it. They suspended me for 3 months. Then I hurt my back 17 after they moved me from the site.” (Compl. 5 (capitalization altered).) 18 Under relief, Plaintiff states “2015 I was moved to South High where I got my back injury. 19 Nothing [illegible] they walked me off by the police?? I reported it to the union rep nothing was 20 done. 9/29/21 hurt my leg denied my clam and back.” (Compl. 6.) 21 III. 22 DISCUSSION 23 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a violation of her 24 federal rights. Plaintiff shall be provided the opportunity to file an amended complaint to 25 attempt to correct the deficiencies at issue. 26 / / / 27 1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 1 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 2 Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must 4 simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which 5 it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citation and internal 6 quotation marks omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals 7 of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 8 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). This is because, while factual allegations are accepted 9 as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57; Moss v. U.S. 10 Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 11 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 12 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 13 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 14 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 15 U.S. at 556). 16 Most of Plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory statements alleging some form of 17 discrimination or back/leg injury related to her work. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s complaint 18 does not contain enough factual details to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that 19 any named Defendants are liable for any misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Most 20 significantly, after naming the individual Defendants, Plaintiff does not state any specific actions 21 that any named Defendants took relating to the alleged discrimination or other misconduct. 22 Plaintiff does not mention any of the individual Defendants again after naming them as 23 Defendants. 24 For these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 25 8(a)(2). The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to allow Plaintiff to 26 provide additional and specific factual details to the Court. 27 / / / 1 B. Diversity and Federal Question Jurisdiction 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to 3 that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts 4 are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary 5 rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 6 377 (1994). Generally, there are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question 7 jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Plaintiff alleges both federal 8 question jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction. 9 District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different 10 States in which “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 11 interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This requires complete diversity of citizenship and the 12 presence “of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district 13 court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 14 Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff alleges that 15 she is a citizen of California. (Compl. 4.) While Plaintiff does not name the Kern High School 16 District as a Defendant, she states it is a citizen of California, and that each named Defendant’s 17 address is in California. Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled diversity jurisdiction. 18 Jurisdiction in this action must therefore be based on a federal question. Pursuant to 28 19 U.S. C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 20 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either 21 where federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 22 necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 23 277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 24 v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983) (citations omitted)). “[T]he 25 presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 26 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 27 the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Republican Party of Guam, 277 F.3d at 1 As to federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts against the 2 Defendants that would state a federal claim. 3 C. Legal Standards Pertaining to Federal Discrimination Law 4 Under Title VII, an employer is prohibited from discriminating against any individual 5 because of the individual’s race or color. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 6 1019, 1028 (9th Cir. 2006). To establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff 7 must show the following: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for 8 the position; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated 9 individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably. Fonseca v. Sysco Food 10 Services of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004). 11 Plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient facts and fails to state any cognizable claim. 12 IV. 13 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 14 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 15 The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint to cure the above-identified 16 deficiencies to the extent she is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 17 (9th Cir. 2000). 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 19 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 20 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 21 raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 22 omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 23 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 24 “buckshot” complaints). 25 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 26 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be 27 “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 1 | twenty-five (25) page limit set forth above. 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 4 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 5 second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 6 order; 7 3, The second amended complaint, including attachments, shall not exceed twenty- 8 five (25) pages in length; and 9 4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 10 the Court will recommend to the district judge that this action be dismissed, with 11 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute, and for failure to 12 state a claim. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 15 | Dated: _March 29, 2022 _ ef 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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