Jacob Morgan v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00539
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 JACOB MORGAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00539-CDS-NJK

7 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 8 v. 9 BJ’S RESTAURANTS, INC., 10 Defendant(s). 11 On May 20, 2025, the Court withdrew its report and recommendation for dismissal and 12 instructed that the amended complaint would be screened in the ordinary course pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Docket No. 11; see also Docket No. 10 (notice of right to sue). The Court 14 herein screens the amended complaint. 15 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 16 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 17 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 18 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 19 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 20 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 21 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 22 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 24 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 25 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 26 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 27 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 28 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 1 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 2 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 3 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 4 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 5 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 6 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 7 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 8 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 9 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 10 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 11 To allege a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of Title VII, a plaintiff must allege: 12 (1) that he engaged in protected conduct, such as complaining about discriminatory practices; (2) 13 that he suffered adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the employee’s 14 action and the adverse act. See Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2008). 15 Plaintiff alleges that he complained of harassing conduct, that his employment was thereafter 16 terminated, and that the termination was retaliation for engaging in protected activity. See Docket 17 No. 7 at 3, 5. Although very short on details, the Court finds that the complaint suffices at the 18 screening stage given Plaintiff’s pro se status.1 19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 20 1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons to Defendant, and deliver the same to the 21 U.S. Marshal for service. The Clerk of the Court shall also deliver a copy of the 22 amended complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service. 23 1 The Court screens the complaint without the benefit of the adversarial process. Buchheit 24 v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012). Nothing in this order should be construed as precluding the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint. 25 A complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage if it fails to state “a claim on 26 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Hence, it suffices to survive screening that Plaintiff has stated one claim. See, e.g., Bem v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 27 2015 WL 300373, at *3 n.1 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015). It appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to bring other claims against Defendant. See Docket No. 7 at 1. The Court express no opinion as to 28 the sufficiency of the complaint as to any claim other than the retaliation claim addressed above. ] 2. Plaintiff shall have twenty days in which to furnish the U.S. Marshal with the required 2 Form USM-285.” Within twenty days after receiving from the U.S. Marshal a copy of 3 the Form USM-285, showing whether service has been accomplished, Plaintiff must 4 file a notice with the court identifying whether defendant was served. If Plaintiff 5 wishes to have service again attempted on an unserved defendant, a motion must be 6 filed with the Court identifying the unserved defendant and specifying a more detailed 7 name and/or address for said defendant, or whether some other manner of service 8 should be attempted. 9 3. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service must be 10 accomplished within 90 days from the date this order is entered. 11 4. From this point forward, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or, if appearance has 12 been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion, or 13 other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with 14 the original papers submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and 15 correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendants or counsel for Defendants. The 16 Court may disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that 17 has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate 18 Judge, or the Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 27, 2025 Nancy.J. Keppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The USM-285 form is available at www.usmarshals.gov/process/usm285.pdf.