Tameka Parker v. Zoox, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01898
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 Tameka Parker, Case No. 2:25-cv-01898-RFB-NJK

9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 10 v. 11 Zoox, Inc., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested authority pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 1. 15 I. In Forma Pauperis Application 16 Plaintiff filed an affidavit required by § 1915(a). Docket No. 1. Plaintiff has shown an 17 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the application to proceed 18 in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) will be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk’s 19 Office is further INSTRUCTED to file the complaint on the docket. 20 II. Screening the Complaint 21 Upon granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, courts additionally screen the 22 complaint pursuant to § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if the 23 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 24 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 25 When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the 26 complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the 27 complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 28 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a complaint 2 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is 3 essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 4 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the claim 5 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, 7 it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 8 of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 9 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations contained in the 10 complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. 11 Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory allegations, do 12 not suffice. Id. at 678. Secondly, where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the line from 13 conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 14 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 15 by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 16 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 17 Plaintiff brings several employment-related claims. See Docket No. 1-1 at 4. To 18 sufficiently allege a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of Title VII to survive a § 1915 19 screening, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that he or she committed a protected act, such as complaining 20 about discriminatory practices; (2) that the employee suffered an adverse employment action; and 21 (3) a causal connection between the employee’s action and the adverse act. See, e.g., Bem v. Clark 22 Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 300373, at *3 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015). Construing Plaintiff’s complaint 23 liberally, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff complained of racial harassment, Docket No. 1-1 at 24 5, that she was then treated unfairly including termination of her employment, see id. at 4, 5-6, and 25 26 27 28 1 that the disparate treatment was the result of her protected activity, see id. at 5-6. Such allegations 2 suffice to state a colorable claim for retaliation at the screening phase.1 3 While the substance of the complaint suffices for screening purposes, the Court notes that 4 the complaint is not signed by Plaintiff. See Docket No. 1-1 at 6 (“Signature of Plaintiff” left 5 blank). Pleadings must be signed by an attorney or pro se party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). The Court 6 “must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected.” Id. Plaintiff must 7 refile her complaint with her signature by October 22, 2025. 8 III. Conclusion 9 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 1) is GRANTED. 11 Plaintiff is not required to pay the filing fee of $405. Plaintiff is permitted to maintain 12 this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional fees or 13 costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed in forma 14 pauperis does not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government 15 expense. 16 2. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to file Plaintiff’s complaint on the docket. 17 3. Plaintiff must refile her complaint with her signature by October 22, 2025. 18 4. After a properly signed complaint is filed by Plaintiff, the Court will provide 19 instructions regarding service of process. 20 5. From this point forward, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant, or, if appearance has 21 been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion, or 22 other document submitted for consideration by the court. Plaintiff shall include with 23 the original papers submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and 24

25 1 The Court screens the complaint without the benefit of the adversarial process. Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012). Nothing in this order should be construed as 26 precluding the filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint. A complaint is subject to dismissal at the screening stage if it fails to state “a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Hence, it suffices to survive screening that Plaintiff has stated one claim. See, e.g., Bem, 2015 WL 300373, at *3 n.1. The Court express no opinion as to the 28 sufficiency of the complaint as to any claim other than the retaliation claim addressed above. ] correct copy of the document was mailed to Defendants or counsel for Defendants. The 2 Court may disregard any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that 3 has not been filed with the Clerk, and any paper received by a District Judge, Magistrate 4 Judge, or the Clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 8, 2025 7 7, a = — Nancy J> e 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28