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 Alvota, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Major Samia brings this lawsuit regarding alleged discriminatory practices 11 which presumably took place at his place of employment. He moves to proceed in forma 12 pauperis. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing 13 an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. As a result, his request to proceed in 14 forma pauperis therefore will be granted. This Court now screens his complaint (ECF No. 1-1) as 15 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 16 I. ANALYSIS 17 A. Screening standard 18 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 20 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 21 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 23 failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 24 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 25 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 26 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them 27 “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 1 which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 3 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 4 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 5 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 7 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 9 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 10 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 11 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 B. Screening the complaint 13 Plaintiff alleges defendants have discriminated against him based on his disability, 14 dismissed him without due process, and forced him to resign. 15 Even liberally construing the complaint, this Court finds plaintiff does not state a claim 16 against any of the defendants mentioned in the complaint. That is because he does not provide 17 sufficient factual allegations as to the claims in question. Without additional factual allegations 18 regarding the underlying dispute, this Court cannot evaluate whether plaintiff’s complaint states a 19 claim against defendants. 20 The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination “against a 21 qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, 22 advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, 23 conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA applies to private 24 employers. Puckett v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1352 (D. Nev. 2004). 25 It appears plaintiff wishes to allege claims for ADA discrimination and ADA retaliation. 26 This Court will provide plaintiff with the elements as to each of these claims so that he may 27 allege facts as to each of the different elements. 1 To state a colorable claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, plaintiff must 2 allege that plaintiff: (1) is a disabled person under the ADA; (2) is a qualified individual with a 3 disability; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action because of plaintiff’s disability. Ravel v. 4 Hewlett-Packard Enter., Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1086, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2017). 5 2. ADA Retaliation 6 ADA retaliation claims are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII retaliation 7 claims. Purcell v. Am. Legion, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1056 (E.D. Wash. 2014). Therefore, to state 8 a plausible ADA retaliation claim, plaintiff must allege: (1) involvement in a protected activity; 9 (2)an adverse employment action; and (3) a but-for causal link between the two. Arnold v. Pfizer, 10 Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1140 (D. Ore. 2013) (citing Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 11 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000)); Gallagher v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 14 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1386 12 (S.D. Cal. 2014). 13 3. Instructions for amendment 14 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 15 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement describing the 16 underlying case and each defendant’s involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 17 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, plaintiff still 18 must give each defendant fair notice of his claims against them and of his entitlement to relief. 19 In addition, plaintiff must look at the elements for each of his claims closely and allege 20 facts as to each of the elements. Should he not allege facts as to each of the different elements, his 21 claims will be dismissed. 22 Additionally, plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 23 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 24 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 25 documents. This Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make his amended 26 complaint complete. 27 II. CONCLUSION ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 || (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiffis permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without 3 || prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 Alvota, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 Pro se plaintiff Major Samia brings this lawsuit regarding alleged discriminatory practices 11 which presumably took place at his place of employment. He moves to proceed in forma 12 pauperis. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted the affidavit required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing 13 an inability to prepay fees or costs or give security for them. As a result, his request to proceed in 14 forma pauperis therefore will be granted. This Court now screens his complaint (ECF No. 1-1) as 15 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 16 I. ANALYSIS 17 A. Screening standard 18 Upon granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims 20 and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be 21 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 22 1915(e)(2). Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for 23 failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 24 (9th Cir. 2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, 25 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 26 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them 27 “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 1 which would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). 3 In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all allegations of 4 material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wyler 5 Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff 7 must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 8 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id. 9 Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through amendment, a pro se 10 plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding the complaint’s 11 deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 B. Screening the complaint 13 Plaintiff alleges defendants have discriminated against him based on his disability, 14 dismissed him without due process, and forced him to resign. 15 Even liberally construing the complaint, this Court finds plaintiff does not state a claim 16 against any of the defendants mentioned in the complaint. That is because he does not provide 17 sufficient factual allegations as to the claims in question. Without additional factual allegations 18 regarding the underlying dispute, this Court cannot evaluate whether plaintiff’s complaint states a 19 claim against defendants. 20 The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits discrimination “against a 21 qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, 22 advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, 23 conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA applies to private 24 employers. Puckett v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 332 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1352 (D. Nev. 2004). 25 It appears plaintiff wishes to allege claims for ADA discrimination and ADA retaliation. 26 This Court will provide plaintiff with the elements as to each of these claims so that he may 27 allege facts as to each of the different elements. 1 To state a colorable claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, plaintiff must 2 allege that plaintiff: (1) is a disabled person under the ADA; (2) is a qualified individual with a 3 disability; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action because of plaintiff’s disability. Ravel v. 4 Hewlett-Packard Enter., Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1086, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2017). 5 2. ADA Retaliation 6 ADA retaliation claims are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII retaliation 7 claims. Purcell v. Am. Legion, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1056 (E.D. Wash. 2014). Therefore, to state 8 a plausible ADA retaliation claim, plaintiff must allege: (1) involvement in a protected activity; 9 (2)an adverse employment action; and (3) a but-for causal link between the two. Arnold v. Pfizer, 10 Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1140 (D. Ore. 2013) (citing Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 11 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000)); Gallagher v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 14 F. Supp. 3d 1380, 1386 12 (S.D. Cal. 2014). 13 3. Instructions for amendment 14 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document must be titled “Amended 15 Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement describing the 16 underlying case and each defendant’s involvement in the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 17 Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading standard, plaintiff still 18 must give each defendant fair notice of his claims against them and of his entitlement to relief. 19 In addition, plaintiff must look at the elements for each of his claims closely and allege 20 facts as to each of the elements. Should he not allege facts as to each of the different elements, his 21 claims will be dismissed. 22 Additionally, plaintiff is advised that if he files an amended complaint, the original 23 complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended 24 complaint must be complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other 25 documents. This Court cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make his amended 26 complaint complete. 27 II. CONCLUSION ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 2 || (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. Plaintiffis permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without 3 || prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and separately file 5 || Prado’s complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline to file an amended complaint is October 6, 8 || 2025. 9 10 DATED: September 4, 2025 1] 12 Li gum Les WEE Ro, BRENDA WEKSLER 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28