Rivers v. University of San Francisco

Opinion

1 4 5 KEITH RIVERS, Case No. 19-cv-06609-JSC

6 Plaintiff, SECTION 1915 SCREENING OF 7 v. COMPLAINT

8 UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendant. 9

10 Keith Rivers brings this action against the University of San Francisco (the “University”), 11 for alleged employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 12 (Dkt. No. 1.) Having granted Mr. Rivers’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, (see Dkt. No. 13 5), the Court now screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and concludes that the 14 complaint is deficient for the reasons stated below. 16 Mr. Rivers’ “Employment Discrimination Complaint” alleges that he was subject to 17 adverse employment actions because of his race and sex. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2 ¶¶ 4-5.) The form 18 complaint itself includes no factual allegations and instead references an attachment that includes 19 “General Facts.” (See id. at 2 ¶ 6; see also id. at 5.) Mr. Rivers became an employee of the 20 University “[i]n or around September 2018.” (Id. at 5.) He “was elected to the position of 21 Graduate Student Senator Representative for the School of Education,” and also “appointed to the 22 Board of Trustees’ Academic Affairs Committee as the only Graduate Student Representative on 23 campus.” (Id.) Mr. Rivers and the University agreed that Mr. Rivers would hold both positions 24 “from September 2018 until May 2019.” (Id.) Mr. Rivers was required to attend all meetings for 25 both positions, and the “meeting dates [were] communicated by email.” (Id.) 26 The University disabled Mr. Rivers’ email account on March 1, 2019, in retaliation for a 27 lawsuit Mr. Rivers filed on February 4, 2019. (Id.) In doing so, the University “knowingly and 1 Rivers’ email access, the University is “trying to erase and/or hid crucial evidence for the pending 2 lawsuit.” (Id.) Mr. Rivers was also unable to obtain online access to his classes despite having 3 paid tuition for the 2019 Spring semester. (Id.) 4 Mr. Rivers requests “relief due to the negative actions of the [University]: 1) using unfair 5 disciplinary actions, 2) the denial of ongoing growth and training, 3) and work termination/firing.” 6 (Id. at 6.) 8 The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in 9 forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a 10 claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 11 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 12 1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) 13 (citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)). Thus, the complaint must allege 14 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 15 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not a “probability requirement” but 16 mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 17 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To avoid dismissal, a 18 complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic 19 recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. “A claim has facial 20 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 21 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 22 When a plaintiff files a complaint without an attorney, the Court must “construe the 23 pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 24 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Upon dismissal, self- 25 represented plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis must be given leave to “to amend their 26 complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 27 amendment.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation 2 To state a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that 3 (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was performing his job in a satisfactory manner, (3) 4 he suffered an adverse employment decision, and (4) he was treated differently than similarly 5 situated persons outside his protected class. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 6 802 (1973). Here, the complaint does not include any allegations from which it can be plausibly 7 inferred that the University discriminated against Mr. Rivers in violation of Title VII. Mr. Rivers 8 includes no factual allegations whatsoever regarding any incidents of discrimination on the basis 9 of his sex or race; instead, Mr. Rivers simply checked boxes on the Employment Discrimination 10 form complaint indicating that the University discriminated against him based on his “race or 11 color” and “sex.” (See Dkt. No. 1 at 29/5.) As for the alleged retaliation in response to a lawsuit 12 Mr. Rivers filed in February 2019, Mr. Rivers does not specify what the suit entailed or who it was 5 13 against and therefore the Court cannot conclude that Mr. Rivers has plausibly alleged a Title VII 14 retaliation claim. 3 15 Accordingly, the complaint fails Section 1915 review. 3 17 For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Rivers’ complaint fails section 1915 review. Mr. 18 Rivers may file an amended complaint within 30 days; the amended complaint must identify his 19 claims and include a plain statement of facts in support. The Court encourages Mr. Rivers to seek 20 free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th 21 Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102. Mr. Rivers can make an appointment in person or 22 by calling (415) 792-8982. 24 Dated: November 8, 2019 25 fuss Sook JMCQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 28

1 2 3 6 KEITH RIVERS, 7 Case No. 19-cv-06609-JSC Plaintiff, 8 9 Vv. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Defendant. 11 12 . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 13 = District Court, Northern District of California. 14 That on November 8, 2019, ISERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 15 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

16 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 17 = receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Z 18 19 Keith Rivers 530 Reliant Way 20 American Canyon, CA 94503 21 22 Dated: November 8, 2019 23 24 Susan Y. Soong 25 Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 By: __ 28 Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY