(PS) Tafari v. Rucker

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RAS HEZEKIAH TAFARI, No. 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 YVETTE TUCKER, et al., THIS ACTION 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 8) 16 17 Plaintiff Ras Hezekiah Tafari, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 18 action on September 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 15, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 21 complaint and found that plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state his sole federal claim 22 brought in this action—a federal claim for employment discrimination on account of religion 23 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2. (Doc. No. 5 at 2.) The gravamen 24 of plaintiff’s claim is that defendant Federal Express Corporation “violated federal law by 25 rescinding his job offer when, for religious reasons, he did not provide his Social Security number 26 on an employment form.” (Id. at 1.) The magistrate judge explained that plaintiff’s Title VII 27 claim is not cognizable because “accommodating [plaintiff’s] religious beliefs would be an undue 28 ///// 1 hardship on defendants as a matter of law.” (Id. at 3–4) (citing cases). Plaintiff was nevertheless 2 granted leave to file a second amended complaint, which he did on June 16, 2023. (Doc. No. 6.) 3 On January 16, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 4 complaint and again found that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant refused to hire him because 5 he would not provide his social security number are insufficient to state a cognizable Title VII 6 religious discrimination claim. (Doc. No. 8.) The magistrate judge again explained that plaintiff 7 failed to state a cognizable Title VII religious discrimination claim because “defendant would 8 violate federal law if it were to hire plaintiff without obtaining a social security number; [thus,] 9 requiring defendant to do so would, as a matter of law, impose an undue [burden] on defendant.” 10 (Id. at 2–3) (citing Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1999) 11 (rejecting a claim that failure to hire for want of a social security number violated Title VII and 12 holding that “an employer is not liable under Title VII when accommodating an employee’s 13 religious beliefs would require the employer to violate federal or state law”)). Further, because 14 plaintiff had already been granted an opportunity to amend his allegations, the magistrate judge 15 recommended that plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 16 (Id. at 3.) 17 The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 18 that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On 19 January 24, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. 20 No. 9.) 21 In his objections, plaintiff primarily repeats the allegations included in his first amended 22 complaint, which the magistrate judge already address in the pending findings and 23 recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections are also largely conclusory in nature, e.g., “plaintiff’s 24 complaint provides enough facts” (Doc. No. 9 at 1), and do not address the Ninth Circuit 25 decisions that the magistrate judge cited and discussed in both the screening order and the 26 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections simply provide no basis upon which to 27 reject the pending findings and recommendations. 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiffs 3 | objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 4 | record and by proper analysis. 5 Accordingly: 6 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 8) are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim for 9 relief; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 2, 2024 □□□ A. 2, ye 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28