Hinckley v. All American Waste Services Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00927
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Michelle Hinckley, No. CV-25-00927-PHX-SHD

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 All American Waste Services Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Michelle Hinckley’s (1) Motion to Proceed 16 Under a Pseudonym, (Doc. 1); (2) Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 17 (“IFP”), (Doc. 2); and (3) Motion to Allow Electronic Filing, (Doc. 3). For the reasons 18 explained below, Hinckley’s application to proceed IFP and motion to allow electronic 19 filing are granted. Hinckley’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym is denied. 20 Hinckley’s Title VII claim against Defendant All American Waste Services, Inc. (“All 21 American”) is dismissed with leave to amend, and Hinckley’s claims against the 22 individual defendants are dismissed without leave to amend. Hinckley’s claim under the 23 Arizona Civil Rights Act (the “ACRA”) against All American may proceed. 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On March 20, 2025, Hinckley filed the instant motions. (Docs. 1–3.) On April 9, 26 2025, Hinckley filed her Complaint. (Doc. 7.) 27 Hinckley asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 28 ACRA, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1461, et seq. (Doc. 7 at 3.) She named All American, her 1 former employer, as a defendant, along with the company’s owner and his son, Todd and 2 Tanner Shell,1 and the “director of the company’s nationwide military, government, and 3 emergency contracts,” Adam McGhan. (Id. at 5.) In her Complaint, Hinckley alleges the 4 defendants unlawfully discriminated against her, harassed her, and terminated her in 5 retaliation for complaining about their conduct. (Id.) She requests compensatory damages 6 for lost wages and benefits due to her wrongful termination, emotional distress damages, 7 punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 26.) 8 She asserts All American hired her to “directly assist Tanner Shell in creating a new 9 social media and email marketing department as a way to provide economic growth for the 10 company as . . . Todd Shell was planning on retiring.” (Id. at 5.) Then, in April 2023, she 11 “received an unexpected onslaught of 80–90 back-to-back messages from [Tanner] 12 between midnight and 2:00 AM,” which included “verbal harassments, veiled threats, 13 demeaning insults, and sexually harassing comments.” (Id. at 6.) This altercation ended 14 in Tanner purporting to fire Hinckley. (Id.) 15 The next morning, Hinckley attempted to inform Todd of the incident, but because 16 he was out of town, she confided in McGhan. (Id. at 7.) McGhan “confirmed the texts 17 were inappropriate and disturbing and proceeded to tell [Hinckley] via text that he believed 18 [Tanner] was ‘threatened’ by [Hinckley] and informed her that [Todd was] well aware of 19 [Tanner’s] behaviors and [had] to handle Tanner and ‘act as a buffer’ between Tanner and 20 other employees.” (Id.) 21 When Hinckley and McGhan later met in person, McGhan warned Hinckley “that 22 [Todd] has the financial means and uses them to protect [Tanner] and to ‘take care’ of 23 issues that arise given his financial means and his ties with the city of Mesa.” (Id. at 8.) 24 Hinckley responded she was “now afraid for the safety of herself and her kids,” and 25 McGhan replied “by instructing her to not give [Tanner] her new address or work phone 26 number.” (Id.) 27 Hinckley attempted to set up other meetings with Todd, but “every meeting and

28 1 The Court will refer to the Shell defendants by their first names to avoid confusion, not out of any disrespect. 1 phone call [was] rescheduled until May 3rd, 2023 when he stopped responding to requests 2 completely.” (Id. at 9.) On June 9, 2023, however, Todd introduced his nephew to 3 Hinckley, notifying her that he hired the nephew to take over Tanner’s responsibilities. 4 (Id.) Other than this, Todd “never spoke privately with [Hinckley] or allowed for a meeting 5 or conversation to take place about the harassment and what would happen next.” (Id.) 6 Yet, after this meeting, McGhan “confided in [Hinckley] saying ‘do not tell Todd 7 about this, but I just had a meeting with [Todd’s nephew] and Todd and [the nephew] 8 started asking why [Hinckley] even had a position or job [at All American], that it’s not a 9 real position, and [the nephew’s] sister would do it for free.’” (Id. at 9–10.) Then in July 10 2023, Todd “called [Hinckley] into the office . . . and stated that [his nephew] would now 11 be taking over all email marketing, significantly reducing [her] roles and duties.” (Id. at 12 10.) When Hinckley asked Todd for a “meeting to now clarify her job and role,” Todd 13 responded that McGhan would “get back to” her, but from that point “McGhan drastically 14 reduced all communication with” Hinckley. (Id.) 15 This reduction in communication resulted in Hinckley not being provided any 16 logistical information for a large company event, “making it impossible [for her] to attend.” 17 (Id. at 10–11.) Hinckley “attempt[ed] to get into contact with [McGhan] multiple times 18 prior to the event to discuss all details, and the day before the event to let [him] know that 19 she would be unable to attend because her husband and son were hospitalized.” (Id. at 11.) 20 McGhan “did not try to contact her until the day after the event ended, simply texting, and 21 asking how the event went.” (Id.) When Hinckley responded that “she had not attended 22 because of lack of logistics and her family emergency,” McGhan “never responded and 23 never messaged [her] again until one full month later, the day after she was terminated for 24 not attending” the event. (Id.) 25 On January 18, 2024, Hinckley filed a charge with the Arizona Civil Rights Division 26 (“ACRD”), which investigated the circumstances surrounding Hinckley’s termination; she 27 and All American submitted statements. (See id. at 12, 25.) Hinckley alleges All American 28 submitted a “misleading response” that contained “numerous malicious and egregious 1 falsehoods” to both the ACRD and, subsequently, to the Equal Employment Opportunity 2 Commission (“EEOC”), about the nature of her employment and termination. (Id. at 11– 3 12.) The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on January 29, 2025. (Id. at 24.) 4 II. IFP APPLICATION 5 Before turning to Hinckley’s Complaint, the Court first addresses her request to 6 proceed IFP in this case. “There is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law 7 to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 8 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is 9 sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the 10 necessities of life.” Id. at 1234 (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 11 331, 339 (1948)). 12 Here, the Court has reviewed the application to proceed IFP. (Doc. 2.) The Court 13 finds Hinckley cannot pay the filing fee and still afford necessities. Accordingly, the 14 motion will be granted. 15 III. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT 16 Because Hinckley is proceeding IFP in this case, the Court must screen her 17 Complaint. 18 A. Legal Standard 19 Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court 20 “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous 21 or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 22 “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners 23 can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma 24 pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only 25 permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma 26 pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 27 28 Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2005). 1 “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a 3 claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that 4 screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in 5 the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 6 7 Hairston v. Juarez, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2023). 8 B. Claims Against All American 9 Hinckley’s Title VII claim against All American will be dismissed because 10 Hinckley did not allege that All American meets the statutory definition of an 11 “employer”—i.e., that All American “has fifteen or more employees for each working day 12 in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” Cox 13 v. Glob. Tool Supply LLC, 2020 WL 4464384, at *1 (D. Ariz. 2020) (quoting 42 U.S.C. 14 § 2000e(b)). This is “an essential element of her claim,” such that “failing to plead the 15 employee numerosity requirement is grounds for dismissal.” Id. The Court will grant 16 Hinckley leave to amend this claim, as Hinckley could possibly allege facts sufficient to 17 demonstrate that All American falls within Title VII’s definition of “employer.” See Lopez, 18 203 F.3d at 1130 (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to 19 amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be 20 cured by the allegation of other facts.” (citation omitted)). 21 Hinckley, however, sufficiently states her claim against All American under the 22 ACRA, to survive screening, because she claims she was terminated after reporting she 23 was sexually harassed by Tanner. See Randall v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 2024 WL 24 1071185, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2024) (“[S]exual harassment is sex discrimination. By tolerating 25 sexual harassment against its employees, the employer is deemed to have adversely 26 changed the terms of their employment . . . .” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); id. 27 at *5–6 (finding that a plaintiff sufficiently alleged a retaliation claim under the ACRA 28 where the plaintiff reported harassing “conduct towards her” and her employer threatened 1 to transfer her within a three-month span of her reporting); McPhail v. Cox Com, Inc., 2011 2 WL 5006665, at *5 (D. Ariz. 2011) (“Plaintiff would need to allege facts establishing a 3 discriminatory motive in order to sustain a claim under ACRA. Plaintiff has done so by 4 alleging that he was fired shortly after his wife developed a disability.”); Lombardi v. 5 Copper Canyon Acad., LLC, 2010 WL 3775408, at *7 (D. Ariz. 2010) (denying motion to 6 dismiss ACRA claim where the plaintiff “alleged sufficient facts . . . to assert a claim that 7 her termination was at least in part the result of retaliation against her for opposing age 8 discrimination”). Although the ACRA has a similar definition of “employer”—requiring 9 at least fifteen employees—the ACRA also includes within this definition a “person who 10 has one or more employees . . . to the extent that the person is alleged to have . . . 11 [d]iscriminated against anyone for opposing sexual harassment.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41- 12 1461(7)(a). 13 Because the Complaint alleges the existence of at least two people employed by All 14 American (Hinckley and McGhan), and Hinckley alleges she was terminated for “opposing 15 sexual harassment,” All American meets the ACRA’s definition of “employer.” The Court 16 thus allows Hinckley’s ACRA claim against All American to proceed past this preliminary 17 screening, but it does so without prejudice to All American making any motions it deems 18 appropriate. Coleman v. Maldonado, 564 F. App’x 893, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) 19 (a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss despite a prior screening order 20 finding the complaint stated a claim); Jones v. Sullivan, 2020 WL 5792989, at *5 21 (N.D.N.Y. 2020) (“A court’s initial screening under § 1915(e) and/or § 1915A does not 22 preclude a later dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”). 23 C. Claims Against Individual Defendants 24 Hinckley’s claims against the individual defendants Todd, Tanner, and McGhan are 25 dismissed with prejudice because neither Title VII nor the ACRA imposes “individual 26 liability on employees.” Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l, 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993); 27 Addy v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2010 WL 1408886, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2010) (“Neither Title 28 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Arizona Civil Rights Act permit liability to run 1 to individual defendants.”); see also Nash v. Arizona, 2009 WL 10673385, at *1 (D. Ariz. 2 2009) (“Individuals may not be held liable for violations of Title VII . . . ; [this] statute[] 3 appl[ies] only to employers.”); Barkclay v. Wal-Mart, Stores, Inc., 2007 WL 4410257, at 4 *3 (D. Ariz. 2007) (“[A]s a matter of law, Plaintiff is barred from asserting a Title VII 5 claim against [the individual defendants].”). Because amendment would be futile, the 6 Court does not grant Hinckley leave to amend her claims as to Todd, Tanner, and McGhan. 7 See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. 8 D. Leave to Amend 9 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 10 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 11 of the action. See id. at 1127–29. The Court’s finding of futility itself may justify not 12 granting leave to amend. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 13 As stated above, here, the Court cannot conclude that amendment of Hinckley’s 14 Title VII claim against All American would be futile. This conclusion is based on the 15 possibility that Hinckley could allege additional facts concerning whether All American 16 meets the statutory definition of “employer.” Accordingly, the Court will give Hinckley 17 the opportunity to amend her Title VII claim against All American. The Court does not 18 give Hinckley leave to amend her claims against Todd, Tanner, and McGhan because, as 19 explained above, Title VII and the ACRA do not permit such claims, so any amendment 20 would be futile. 21 Hinckley must take note that an amended complaint supersedes the original 22 complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. 23 Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, after amendment, the 24 Court will treat the original complaint as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause 25 of action that was raised in the original Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or 26 was dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in an amended complaint. 27 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 28 1 IV. PSEUDONYMITY 2 Hinckley moves to proceed under a pseudonym in this case to “protect her privacy, 3 prevent potential harassment or retaliation, and safeguard her personal and professional 4 reputation while allowing public access to the case.” (Doc. 2 at 1.) She states that, because 5 of the “nature of [her] allegations, including sexual harassment and retaliation, [she] is 6 concerned about potential further harm if her full name remains publicly accessible.” (Id. 7 at 1–2.) She is amenable, however, to “allowing Defendants to receive her real identity 8 under seal,” so she argues “proceeding under a pseudonym will not prejudice them in 9 defending against these claims.” (Id. at 2.) 10 The “use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public’s common law right of access 11 to judicial proceedings and Rule 10(a)’s command that the title of every complaint include 12 the names of all the parties.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 13 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). “When a party requests 14 ‘Doe’ status, the factors to be balance[d] . . . against the general presumption that parties’ 15 identities are public information, are”: (1) “the severity of the threatened harm,” (2) “the 16 reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears,” and (3) “the anonymous party’s 17 vulnerability to such retaliation.” Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 944, 945 (9th Cir. 2015) 18 (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted). Courts should also consider whether 19 “the public’s interest [is] best served by requiring plaintiffs to reveal their identities,” 20 Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1069, and will only allow a party to proceed under a 21 pseudonym in unusual cases, Ayers, 789 F.3d at 946; United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 22 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (considering this relief warranted in “exceptional cases”); see also 23 Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1069 (permitting plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym 24 “based on the extreme nature of the retaliation . . . coupled with their highly vulnerable 25 status”). 26 The Court denies Hinckley’s request. As an initial matter, the Court notes that 27 Hinckley filed her motions and her complaint using her full name, and “once information 28 is public, it is no longer confidential.” Coppinger v. Don Sanderson Ford Inc., 2025 WL 1 1000738, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2025); see also id. at *3 (“[T]he complaint has been public for 2 months, so there is nothing in it that could be deemed confidential.”); cf. United States v. 3 Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1013 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We question the value that pseudonymity 4 would have for Stoterau at this point. Stoterau’s conviction is a matter of public record, 5 and many of the documents in his case were not submitted under seal.”); Gambale v. 6 Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen information that is 7 supposed to be confidential . . . is publicly disclosed . . . it necessarily remains public . . . . 8 Once the cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over.” (quotation marks omitted)). Further, 9 if the Court were to grant Hinckley’s request for pseudonymity, the Court would be 10 required to seal all documents already filed in this case, “which weighs even further against 11 anonymity.” Doe v. Revature LLC, 2023 WL 4583470, at *8 (W.D. Wash. 2023). 12 Even if Hinckley had not already disclosed her full name on the public docket, 13 however, the Court would still find that the circumstances of this case do not warrant 14 allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym. Hinckley’s case is not unusual, as many 15 plaintiffs file claims involving sexual harassment or similar conduct in federal court. See, 16 e.g., Stoterau, 524 F.3d at 1012–13 (“[B]ecause this concern is equally present for all 17 similarly situated [individuals] . . . , we cannot say that [the plaintiff’s] case is unusual.”); 18 see also Tolton v. Day, 2019 WL 4305789, at *4 (D.D.C. 2019) (noting that the plaintiff’s 19 status as an adult and the fact that the suit was brought against a private party, rather than 20 the government, counseled against pseudonymity). Hinckley’s allegations of sexual 21 harassment may be sensitive and personal, “but they are no more sensitive than the 22 allegations in many other cases involving allegations of” sexual harassment. Coppinger, 23 2025 WL 1000738, at *3; see also S. Methodist Univ. Ass’n of Women L. Students v. Wynne 24 & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979) (denying pseudonymity where the plaintiffs 25 “face[d] no greater threat of retaliation than the typical plaintiff alleging Title VII 26 violations, including the other women who, under their real names and not anonymously, 27 have filed sex discrimination suits”). Other courts have denied requests to proceed under 28 a pseudonym in cases with allegations more severe than those present here. See, e.g., Doe 1 v. Mahboubi-Fardi, 2024 WL 2206640, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (plaintiff’s allegations of 2 domestic violence did “not rise to the same level of severity of the allegations in . . . past 3 cases in which plaintiffs were permitted to proceed under pseudonyms”). 4 In addition, Hinckley’s alleged harm is not sufficiently severe that it would weigh 5 in favor of pseudonymity. Hinckley alleges that she may be subject to “potential further 6 harm” such as “potential harassment or retaliation” by unknown parties, (Doc. 2 at 1), but 7 such vague assertions are insufficient. See Doe v. Brixinvest, LLC, 2021 WL 886249, at 8 *7 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (“[T]he Court finds that Plaintiff only alleges speculative fears that he 9 may be retaliated against. The Court is not persuaded by these speculations because 10 Defendant and its employees are already privy to John Doe’s real name. John Doe is also 11 no longer employed by Defendant so there is no possibility of future retaliation within the 12 workplace.” (citation omitted)); Tolton, 2019 WL 4305789, at *3 (“Vague and 13 unsubstantiated fears of retaliation are not sufficient to support pseudonymous 14 treatment. . . . To permit pseudonymous treatment based on speculation of this type risks 15 opening the door to similar treatment in any case in which a former employee alleges that 16 [a company] engaged in loathsome misconduct. Opening that door, however, risks closing 17 the door on broad, public access to the judicial process.”); Qualls v. Rumsfeld, 228 F.R.D. 18 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2005) (“The Court understands that bringing litigation can subject a plaintiff 19 to scrutiny and criticism and can affect the way plaintiff is viewed by coworkers and 20 friends, but fears of embarrassment or vague, unsubstantiated fears of retaliatory 21 actions . . . do not permit a plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.”).2 Nor are vague 22 references to reputational harm sufficient. Revature, 2023 WL 4583470, at *6 (“[A] 23 generalized fear of harm to one’s personal reputation or professional reputation, even if it 24 2 Although Hinckley indicated in her Complaint that one of the now-dismissed 25 individual defendants has violent tendencies, (Doc. 7 at 8, 22), she also stated that the defendants “have prior knowledge of [her] identity” and that she is amenable to “allowing 26 Defendants to receive her real identity under seal,” (Doc. 2 at 2), so use of a pseudonym would not mitigate any risk of disclosure to the defendants. See Mahboubi-Fardi, 2024 27 WL 2206640, at *5 (“[I]t is undisputed that Defendants already know Plaintiff’s name and identity. Therefore, allowing Plaintiff to proceed anonymously would not per se limit 28 harassment, retaliation . . . or other misconduct. Further, should such misconduct occur, Plaintiff could seek appropriate, legal remedies.” (citation omitted)). 1 might result in economic harm, is not enough to justify anonymity.”). Because Hinckley’s 2 alleged harm is so vague, the Court is unable to weigh the reasonableness of her fears or 3 whether Hinckley is especially vulnerable. Ayers, 789 F.3d at 945. 4 Ultimately, if the Court were to permit Hinckley to proceed under a pseudonym here 5 based solely on her allegations of sexual harassment and speculative allegations of harm, 6 “there would be no principled basis for denying pseudonymity” to individuals making 7 similar claims, which would be “contrary to [this Circuit’s] long-established policy of 8 upholding the public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings and contrary to 9 [its] requirement that pseudonymity be limited to the unusual case.” Stoterau, 524 F.3d at 10 1013 (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Tolton, 2019 WL 4305789, at *4 11 (“[T]he fact that she has brought suit against her former employer does not constitute the 12 type [of] sensitive or personal information that justifies pseudonymous treatment.”). 13 Hinckley has “chosen to proceed in this litigation and must accept that, in conjunction with 14 that process, [her] name will be made publicly available.” Revature, 2023 WL 4583470, 15 at *8. 16 Because the “people have a right to know who is using their courts,” and Hinckley 17 has not demonstrated that the circumstances of her case are so exceptional or unusual as to 18 warrant proceeding under a pseudonym, the Court denies her request. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 19 at 1013 (citation omitted). 20 V. MOTION TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC FILING 21 The Court grants Hinckley’s request to allow electronic filing, subject to the below 22 conditions. 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED denying Hinckley’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. 25 1). 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Hinckley’s application for leave to 27 proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving 28 security therefore (Doc. 2). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Hinckley’s motion to allow electronic 2 filing by a party appearing without an attorney (Doc. 3) in this case only. Hinckley is 3 required to comply with all rules outlined in the District of Arizona’s Case 4 Management/Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, have 5 access to the required equipment and software, have a personal electronic mailbox of 6 sufficient capacity to send and receive electronic notice of case related transmissions, be 7 able to electronically transmit documents to the Court in .pdf, complete the necessary forms 8 to register as a user with the Clerk’s Office within five days of the date of this Order (if not 9 already on file), register as a subscriber to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic 10 Records) within five days of the date of this Order (if this has not already occurred), and 11 comply with the privacy policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the E- 12 Government Act of 2002. 13 Any misuse of the ECF system will result in immediate discontinuation of this 14 privilege and disabling of the password assigned to the party. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of 16 this Order to the Attorney Admissions/Admin Clerk. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice Hinckley’s Title VII 18 claim in her Complaint (Doc. 7) against All American, and dismissing with prejudice 19 Hinckley’s claims against Todd Shell, Tanner Shell, and Adam McGhan. The Clerk of 20 Court is directed to terminate Todd Shell, Tanner Shell, and Adam McGhan as defendants. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hinckley may file a First Amended Complaint 22 (“FAC”) and amend her Title VII claim against All American Hinckley within 30 days of 23 the date of this Order. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Hinckley files an Amended Complaint, the 25 Clerk of the Court shall not issue subpoenas until the Court screens the Amended 26 Complaint and orders service consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Hinckley does not file a FAC within 30 days 28 of this Order, service by waiver or service of the summons and Complaint shall be at 1 government expense on All American by the United States Marshal or his authorized 2 representative. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 3 The Court directs the following if Hinckley does not file a FAC: 4 (1) The Clerk of Court must send Hinckley a service packet including the 5 Complaint (Doc. 7), this Order, USM-285, and both summons and request 6 for waiver forms for All American. 7 (2) Hinckley must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of Court 8 within 60 days of the date of filing of this Order. The United States Marshal 9 will not provide service of process if Hinckley fails to comply with this 10 Order. If Hinckley does not timely return the service packet, this action may 11 be dismissed. 12 (3) If Hinckley does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or 13 complete service of the Summons and Complaint on the defendants within 14 90 days of this Order, the action may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 15 (4) The United States Marshal must retain the Summons, a copy of the 16 Complaint, and a copy of this Order for future use. 17 (5) The United States Marshal must notify All American of the commencement 18 of this action and request waiver of service of the summons pursuant to Rule 19 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice to the defendant 20 must include a copy of this Order. 21 (6) If All American agrees to waive service of the Summons and Complaint, it 22 must return the signed waiver forms to the United States Marshal, not 23 Hinckley, within 30 days of the date of the notice and request for waiver of 24 service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1)(F) to avoid being 25 charged the cost of personal service. 26 (7) The Marshal must immediately file signed waivers of service of the 27 summons. If a waiver of service of summons is returned as undeliverable or 28 is not returned by All American within 30 days from the date the request for 1 waiver was sent by the Marshal, the Marshal must: 2 (a) personally serve copies of the Summons, Complaint, and this Order 3 upon the defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 4(e)(2); and 5 (b) within 10 days after personal service is effected, file the return of 6 service for All American, along with evidence of the attempt to secure 7 a waiver of service of the summons and of the costs subsequently 8 incurred in effecting service upon All American. The costs of service 9 must be enumerated on the return of service form (USM-285) and 10 must include the costs incurred by the Marshal for photocopying 11 additional copies of the Summons, Complaint, or this Order and for 12 preparing new process receipt and return forms (USM-285), if 13 required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served 14 defendant(s) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2), 15 unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 16 Dated this 14th day of July, 2025. 17 18 / 19 / 20 ) x H le Sharad H. Desai 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28

-14-