Jose Murillo-Esparza v. Bar 20 Dairy Farms, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JOSE MURILLO-ESPARZA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01354 KES SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 BAR 20 DAIRY FARMS, LLC, COURT TO CLOSE CASE 15 Defendant. Doc. 14 16 17 Jose Murillo-Esparza is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action 18 against his former employer, Bar 20 Dairy Farms. Doc. 13. The magistrate judge screened 19 Plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found he failed to state a 20 cognizable claim. Doc. 14 at 2-4. The magistrate judge found the complaint did not include 21 sufficient factual details for the Court to infer the defendant was liable for any misconduct. Id. at 22 4. The magistrate judge explained, “Plaintiff does not state any specific action that the entity 23 Defendant took relating to the alleged wrongful termination, violation of unspecified labor laws, 24 or other misconduct.” Id. The magistrate judge also found Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege 25 the Court has jurisdiction. Id. at 5. The magistrate judge recommended that further leave to 26 amend be denied, and the action be dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 6-7. 27 On April 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. 28 Plaintiff adds new information for the Court for the first time in his objections and attaches 1 | exhibits that include a “Determination and Notice of Rights” from the U.S. Equal Employment 2 || Opportunity Commission, “Notice to Complainant and Respondent” regarding the right to sue in 3 | state court, and his termination form from Bar 20 Dairy. Doc. 15. The additional allegations are 4 | insufficient for the Court to find that Plaintiff states a claim under federal law. For example, 5 | while Plaintiff asserts that he was mistreated by another employee of the defendant, the 6 | allegations do not support a conclusion that he suffered disparate treatment because of his status 7 || asa protected class member or suffered from a hostile work environment. Compare with Davis v. 8 | Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2008) (identifying elements of a disparate 9 | treatment claim); Harris v. City of Fresno, 625 F. Supp. 2d 983, 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (naming 10 | elements of a hostile workplace claim). Plaintiff does not show any error by the magistrate judge 11 | mhis analysis. 12 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court conducted a de novo review of this 13 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the findings and 14 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The Court previously 15 | provided the applicable legal standards in its initial screening, and Plaintiff continues to not allege 16 | sufficient information to support a cognizable claim with his objections. Thus, the Court finds 17 | that further leave to amend is not warranted. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 18 | F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court ORDERS: 19 1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 14) filed April 11, 2025 (Doc. 14) are 20 ADOPTED in full. 21 2. The amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 22 3. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 23 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 24 25 96 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 27 Dated: _ June 28, 2026 4h | | 3g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE