1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE MARSH, Case No. 1:22-cv-00508-JLT-BAK (SKO) 12 Plaintiff, FIRST SCREENING ORDER 13 v. ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO: 14 BANK OF SIERRA, INC., et al., (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 15 Defendants. (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE 16 WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT 17 (Doc. 1) 18 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 19
20 21 Plaintiff Terrance Marsh is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff 22 filed his complaint on April 29, 2022. (Doc. 1). Upon review, the Court concludes that the 23 complaint states one cognizable claim. Plaintiff has the following options as to how to proceed: 24 (1) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, which the Court will screen in due course; or 25 alternatively, (2) Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court stating he wants to stand on this 26 complaint. 27 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 28 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 1 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty 2 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required 5 of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. 6 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma 7 pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 8 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). If the Court determines that a 9 complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies 10 of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 (en banc). 12 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 13 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 14 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 16 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 17 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A 18 complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack 19 of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri 20 v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual 21 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what the 22 plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 23 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 In reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept 25 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 26 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a 27 court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] complaint 28 [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the 1 line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 2 at 557). 3 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 29, 2019, he entered Defendant Bank of Sierra’s 5 city branch and tried to deposit a check into his account. (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges he is a 6 disabled veteran and was denied services under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id.) Plaintiff 7 reports that when he protested his mistreatment, the bank staff refused to deposit his check. (Id.) 8 Defendant Margaret Droese started asking questions about Plaintiff’s personal medical history. 9 (Id.) When Plaintiff asked Ms. Droese why she was treating him so poorly, she responded, “your 10 people have been passing bad checks.” (Id.) 11 Plaintiff alleges that when he asked Ms. Droese what she meant by your people, she 12 responded with a loud voice and said, “black people.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he then asked to 13 speak to the bank manager, Karen Mitchell, who stated that Ms. Droese was following bank policy. 14 (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell then stated that she would not be taking action against 15 Ms. Droese based on Plaintiff’s complaint that he was “denied access to disabled services and 16 denied bank services based on race and because I am Afro American.” (Id.) Ms. Mitchell stated 17 that under no circumstances will she allow Plaintiff to deposit or cash his check even though he 18 was an account holder at the Bank of Sierra at that time. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell 19 went on to state that, “it was not her fault that blacks in the community chose to try to pass bad 20 checks at their bank and that she was following bank policy,” and then refused Plaintiff services. 21 (Id.) 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint states one cognizable 24 claim. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that appear to apply to his claims and 25 will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the identified deficiencies. 26 A. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 27 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to 28 that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts are 1 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests 2 upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 3 (1994). Generally, there are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction 4 and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 5 Plaintiff contends jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE MARSH, Case No. 1:22-cv-00508-JLT-BAK (SKO) 12 Plaintiff, FIRST SCREENING ORDER 13 v. ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO: 14 BANK OF SIERRA, INC., et al., (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 15 Defendants. (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE 16 WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT 17 (Doc. 1) 18 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 19
20 21 Plaintiff Terrance Marsh is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff 22 filed his complaint on April 29, 2022. (Doc. 1). Upon review, the Court concludes that the 23 complaint states one cognizable claim. Plaintiff has the following options as to how to proceed: 24 (1) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, which the Court will screen in due course; or 25 alternatively, (2) Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court stating he wants to stand on this 26 complaint. 27 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 28 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 1 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty 2 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required 5 of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. 6 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma 7 pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 8 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). If the Court determines that a 9 complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies 10 of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 (en banc). 12 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 13 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 14 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 16 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 17 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A 18 complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack 19 of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri 20 v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual 21 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what the 22 plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 23 Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 In reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept 25 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 26 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a 27 court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[A] complaint 28 [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the 1 line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 2 at 557). 3 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 4 Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 29, 2019, he entered Defendant Bank of Sierra’s 5 city branch and tried to deposit a check into his account. (Doc. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges he is a 6 disabled veteran and was denied services under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id.) Plaintiff 7 reports that when he protested his mistreatment, the bank staff refused to deposit his check. (Id.) 8 Defendant Margaret Droese started asking questions about Plaintiff’s personal medical history. 9 (Id.) When Plaintiff asked Ms. Droese why she was treating him so poorly, she responded, “your 10 people have been passing bad checks.” (Id.) 11 Plaintiff alleges that when he asked Ms. Droese what she meant by your people, she 12 responded with a loud voice and said, “black people.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he then asked to 13 speak to the bank manager, Karen Mitchell, who stated that Ms. Droese was following bank policy. 14 (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell then stated that she would not be taking action against 15 Ms. Droese based on Plaintiff’s complaint that he was “denied access to disabled services and 16 denied bank services based on race and because I am Afro American.” (Id.) Ms. Mitchell stated 17 that under no circumstances will she allow Plaintiff to deposit or cash his check even though he 18 was an account holder at the Bank of Sierra at that time. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell 19 went on to state that, “it was not her fault that blacks in the community chose to try to pass bad 20 checks at their bank and that she was following bank policy,” and then refused Plaintiff services. 21 (Id.) 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint states one cognizable 24 claim. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that appear to apply to his claims and 25 will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the identified deficiencies. 26 A. Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction 27 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their power to adjudicate is limited to 28 that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts are 1 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary rests 2 upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 3 (1994). Generally, there are two bases for subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction 4 and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 5 Plaintiff contends jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. (Doc. 1 at 1). 6 These are jurisdictional statutes which do not state independent causes of action. See Muhammad 7 v. Berreth, No. C 12-02407 CRB, 2012 WL 4838427, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2012). 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all 9 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “A case ‘arises 10 under’ federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or ‘where the vindication of 11 a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party 12 of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. 13 Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983)). The presence or absence of federal 14 question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. 15 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 16 question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id. 17 Section 1343(a) states that district courts have original jurisdiction over certain civil actions, 18 including actions for damages to redress deprivations of federally secured civil rights. Accordingly, 19 jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Sections 1331 and 1343 because Plaintiff has asserted claims 20 arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. See, e.g., Quintero v. Merced Unified 21 Sch. Dist., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207768, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2021). 22 B. Legal Standards 23 In the event Plaintiff amends his complaint, the Court provides the following legal standards 24 that may be relevant to his action: 25 1. Fourteenth Amendment 26 The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated 27 alike. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). An equal 28 protection claim may be established by showing that the defendant intentionally discriminated 1 against the plaintiff based on the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. Serrano v. 2 Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th 3 Cir. 2001). Under this theory of equal protection, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s 4 actions were a result of the plaintiff’s membership in a suspect class, such as race. Thornton v. 5 City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005). 6 Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of a protected class as an “Afro American.” (Doc. 1 7 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Droese at Bank of Sierra refused to deposit his check and made 8 the statement that, “your people have been passing bad checks,” allegedly referring to “black 9 people.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was “denied access to disabled services and denied bank 10 services based on race and because I am Afro American.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that the bank’s 11 manager, Ms. Mitchell, stated that under no circumstances will she allow Plaintiff to deposit or 12 cash his check even though he was an account holder at the Bank of Sierra at that time. (Id.) 13 According to Plaintiff, Ms. Mitchell went on to state that, “it was not her fault that blacks in the 14 community chose to try to pass bad checks at their bank and that she was following bank policy,” 15 and then refused Plaintiff services. (Id.) Accepting as true all factual allegations contained in the 16 complaint, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 17 2. Americans with Disabilities Act 18 The ADA was enacted in response to a “compelling need” for a “clear and comprehensive 19 national mandate” to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals. PGA Tour, Inc. v. 20 Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675 (2001). “To effectuate its sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids 21 discrimination against disabled individuals in major areas of public life, among them employment 22 (Title I of the Act), public services (Title II), and public accommodations (Title III).” Id. (internal 23 citations omitted). Title III establishes a “[g]eneral rule” that: 24 No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and 25 equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 26 accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 27 28 1 42 U.S.C.A. § 12182(a). Specifically, Title III prohibits places of public accommodation from 2 denying disabled individuals “to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, 3 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i). 4 To establish a discrimination claim under Title III, Plaintiff must show that (1) he is 5 disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) Defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or 6 operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) Plaintiff was denied full and equal treatment by 7 Defendant because of his disability. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). 8 Here, there is no dispute that Defendant Bank of Sierra is a private entity that operates a place of 9 public accommodation. Plaintiff alleges that he “was denied disabled services at the bank, as 10 [Plaintiff] is a disabled veteran within the meaning of the [ADA].” (Doc. 1 at 4). Plaintiff does not 11 provide additional details demonstrating he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, or that he 12 was denied full and equal treatment because of his disability. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore falls 13 short of establishing a discrimination claim under the ADA. 14 Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks $200,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in punitive 15 damages. (Doc. 1 at 5). To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages for a violation under Title III of the 16 ADA, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim because damages are not recoverable under Title 17 III of the ADA; only injunctive relief is available for violations of Title III. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) 18 (providing that remedies under Title III are the same as those outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(A), 19 which do not permit recovery of monetary damages); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 20 2002). 21 With respect to a claim for injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA regarding a private 22 company’s conduct, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) provides that no individual shall be discriminated against 23 on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of services. Because injunctive relief is 24 the only available remedy under Title III, a plaintiff claiming discrimination under Title III “must 25 not only demonstrate the familiar requirements for standing—injury-in-fact, traceability, 26 redressability—but also ‘a sufficient likelihood that he [or she] will be wronged again in a similar 27 way.’ ” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) 28 1 (quoting Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004)). In other words, 2 a plaintiff must face a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Id. 3 Here, Plaintiff describes the one occasion that he was refused services at the Bank of Sierra. 4 (Doc. 1 at 2-4.) Plaintiff’s complaint does not include allegations that he will be wronged again in 5 a similar way. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiff 6 to seek injunctive relief. 7 C. Leave to Amend 8 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it states a potentially cognizable 9 Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, but fails to state a cognizable claim under the 10 ADA. Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely give 11 leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time 12 to file an amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. If Plaintiff 14 chooses to amend his complaint, in his amended complaint he must state what each named 15 defendant did that led to the deprivation of his constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. 16 P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff 17 should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of 18 changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 19 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 20 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. 21 Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in 22 itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 23 amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant 24 must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 25 Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty 26 of perjury. 27 Plaintiff has a choice on how to proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he 28 believes that additional true factual allegations would state a cognizable ADA claim. If Plaintiff 1 files an amended complaint, the Court will screen that complaint in due course. Alternatively, 2 Plaintiff may choose to stand on his complaint and proceed only on the Fourteenth Amendment 3 Equal Protection claim. 4 IV. ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 6 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either: 7 a. File a First Amended Complaint; or 8 b. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on this complaint; 9 2. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended 10 complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to case number 1:22-cv-00508- 11 JLT-BAK (SKO); and 12 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: May 12, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28