Halverson v. Barclays Services LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00939
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 BRYAN HALVERSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-00939-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 BARCLAYS SERVICES LLC,

8 Defendant.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and 11 Amended Complaint alleging a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. ECF Nos. 1, 3. 12 Plaintiff’s IFP application is granted. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without 13 prejudice, but with leave to amend. 14 I. Screening the Complaint 15 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 16 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening a complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and 17 dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted or 18 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 19 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state 20 a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 21 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 22 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 23 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them 24 “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 25 would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 26 556 U.S. at 678). 27 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of material 1 v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Although the 2 standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide 3 more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 4 A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the 5 complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given 6 leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United 7 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 8 II. Discussion 9 “Exhausting administrative remedies by filing a timely charge with the EEOC or the 10 appropriate state agency is a statutory pre-requisite for an employee to pursue litigation under … 11 Title VII ….” Ramirez v. Kingman Hosp. Inc., 374 F. Supp. 3d 832, 854 (D. Ariz. 2019) (citation 12 omitted). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege he filed a Charge of Discrimination or that 13 he received a Right to Sue Letter thereby failing to establish exhaustion of his administrative 14 remedies. Id. compare ECF No. 3. In the absence of any indication Plaintiff exhausted his 15 administrative remedies, his Complaint cannot proceed before the Court. 16 Further, to allege a prima facie claim of discrimination in violation of Title VII sufficient to 17 survive a § 1915 screening, Plaintiff must allege: (a) he belongs to a protected class; (b) he was 18 qualified for the job he was performing; (c) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and 19 (d) similarly situated employees not in his protected class received more favorable treatment. See 20 Shepard v. Marathon Staffing, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 76097, *5 (D. Nev. June 2, 2014) (citing 21 Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748, 753 (9th Cir. 2006)). Plaintiff identifies his protected class; however, 22 he does not allege any facts satisfying the remainder of a prima facie case of discrimination. 23 III. Order 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma 25 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 3) is 27 DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff so chooses he may file a second amended 2 complaint no later than June 20, 2025. If the second amended complaint seeks to proceed on a Title 3 VII claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating he exhausted his administrative remedies (that 4 is, he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC or Nevada Equal Rights Commission and 5 received a Right to Sue letter no more than 90 days before he initiated this action). Plaintiff must 6 also plead facts, not mere conclusions, supporting a prima facie case of discrimination. 7 Plaintiff is advised that if he files a second amended complaint, the Amended Complaint 8 (ECF No. 3) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the second amended complaint 9 must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other documents. The Court 10 cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 11 complete. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to timely comply with the terms of this Order may 13 result is a recommendation to dismiss this matter in its entirety. 14 Dated this 3rd day of June, 2025. 15

16 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27