Major Benjamin D. Samia v. Hudson By Avolta, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Major Benjamin D. Samia, Case No. 2:25-cv-00983-JAD-BNW

5 Plaintiff, Order 6 v.

7 Hudson By Avolta, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pro se plaintiff Major Benajmin D. Samia brings this lawsuit regarding alleged 11 discriminatory practices which presumably took place at his place of employment. This Court 12 previously screened his complaint and explained what needed to be done in order to state his 13 proposed claims. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint. ECF No. 7. This 14 Court now screens his amended complaint. 15 I. ANALYSIS 16 A. Screening Standard 17 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 19 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 20 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 22 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 23 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient 24 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft 25 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only 26 dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 27 his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 2 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 3 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 4 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 5 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 6 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. Unless it 7 is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se plaintiff 8 should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s deficiencies. 9 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 B. Screening the Complaint 11 Plaintiff alleges Defendants have discriminated against him. Even liberally construing the 12 complaint, this Court finds Plaintiff does not state a claim against any of the defendants 13 mentioned in the complaint. That is because he does not provide sufficient factual allegations as 14 to the claims in question. His complaint is hard to discern. As explained in the past order, the 15 court cannot evaluate whether Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against Defendants. Below are 16 the elements for each of the claims this Court believes Plaintiff is attempting to assert. Plaintiff 17 must provide factual allegations as to each of those elements to assert a claim. 18 1. ADA Discrimination 19 To state a colorable claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must 20 allege that he or she: (1) is a disabled person under the ADA; (2) is a qualified individual with a 21 disability; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. Ravel v. 22 Hewlett-Packard Enter., Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1086, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2017). 23 2. ADA Retaliation 24 ADA retaliation claims are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII retaliation 25 claims. Purcell v. Am. Legion, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1056 (E.D. Wash. 2014). Therefore, to state a 26 plausible ADA retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) involvement in a protected activity; 27 (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a “but-for” causal link between the two. Arnold v. 1 || F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000)); Gallagher v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 14 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 2 || 1386 (S.D. Cal. 2014). 3 3. Instructions for Amendment 4 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 5 || Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement describing the 6 || underlying case and each Defendant’s involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 7 || Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, Plaintiff still 8 || must give each Defendant fair notice of his claims against them and of his entitlement to relief. 9 In addition, Plaintiff must look at the elements for each of his claims closely and allege 10 || facts as to each of the elements. If he fails to allege facts as to each of the different elements, his 11 || claims will be dismissed. 12 Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 13 || complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 14 || complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 15 || documents. The court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make his amended 16 || complaint complete. 17 The court will allow Plaintiff one last chance to amend his complaint. 18 || IL CONCLUSION 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amended complaint is dismissed without 20 || prejudice. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to file a second amended complaint is 22 || August 5, 2026. Failure to file a second amended complaint by that deadline may result in the 23 || dismissal of the case. 24 25 DATED: July 8, 2026 26

NDA WEKSLER 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE