(PS) Shaw v. Kaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center

Opinion

DAN SHAW, No. 2:21-cv-0617 JAM DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND MATERIALS FOR SERVICE KAISER PERMANENTE VALLEJO AND REQUIRING SERVICE BY MEDICAL CENTER, UNITED STATES MARSHAL Defendant. Plaintiff Dan Shaw is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pending before the court are plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Therein, plaintiff complain that the defendant has violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., (“ADA”). The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the financial showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Moreover, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges, generally, that plaintiff was fired by defendant after requesting an accommodation for an injury. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 4-6.) The “failure to provide a reasonable accommodation to ‘an otherwise qualified individual with a disability’ constitutes discrimination” under the ADA. Kaplan v. City of N. Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)). “‘Once an employee requests an accommodation, the employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation.’” EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 620 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002)). In this regard, for purposes of screening the undersigned finds that the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s April 5, 2021 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send plaintiff an instruction sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, one USM-285 form, a summons form, and an endorsed copy of plaintiff’s complaint filed April 5, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) 3. Within sixty (60) days after this order is served, plaintiff shall supply the U.S. Marshal all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process. The required documents shall be submitted directly to the United States Marshal either by personal delivery or by mail to: United States Marshals Service, 501 I Street, Suite 5600, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930- 2030). The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require, for each defendant, at least: a. One completed summons; b. One completed USM-285 form; c. One copy of the endorsed complaint, with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and d. One copy of the instant order. 4. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on a defendant within 90 days of receiving this order the Marshal is directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned. //// 5. Within twenty (20) days after submitting the required materials to the United States Marshals Service, plaintiff shall file with this court a declaration stating the date on which plaintiff submitted the required documents to the United States Marshal. Failure to file the declaration in a timely manner may result in an order imposing appropriate sanctions. 6. Within sixty (60) days after receiving the necessary materials from plaintiff the United States Marshal is directed to serve process on defendants without prepayment of costs. 7. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Dated: April 24, 2021 D ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/shaw0617.serve.ord