Yi Li v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01381
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Yi Li, Case No. 2:25-cv-01381-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services 9 LLC; et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has requested 13 authority to proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 2). 14 Plaintiff has also filed a motion to amend his complaint, despite the Court’s prior order that 15 “Plaintiff may not file any further motions to amend his complaint until after the Court screens 16 his complaint.” (ECF No. 14) (minute order); (ECF No. 23) (motion to amend). Because the 17 Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is complete and demonstrates his inability to pay the filing 18 fee, it grants his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff moved to amend his 19 complaint in violation of the court’s order, the Court denies his motion to amend and strikes it. 20 The Court screens Plaintiff’s operative complaint (ECF No. 17) and finds that Plaintiff’s 21 complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and so dismisses it with leave 22 to amend. 23 I. In forma pauperis application. 24 Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff has shown an 25 inability to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed 26 in forma pauperis will be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court will now review 27 Plaintiff’s complaint. 1 II. Legal standard for screening. 2 As Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, this Court will therefore 3 screen the complaint under § 1915(e). Federal courts are given the authority to dismiss a case if 4 the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 5 granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(e)(2). When a court dismisses a complaint under § 1915, the plaintiff should be given 7 leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from 8 the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Cato v. 9 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for dismissal of a 11 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Review under Rule 12 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 13 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). A properly pled complaint must provide a short and plain statement of 14 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. 15 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual 16 allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the 17 elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Papasan v. 18 Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations 19 contained in the complaint, but the same requirement does not apply to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 20 556 U.S. at 679. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory 21 allegations, do not suffice. Id. at 678. Where the claims in the complaint have not crossed the 22 line from conceivable to plausible, the complaint should be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 23 Allegations of a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 24 drafted by lawyers. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that liberal 25 construction of pro se pleadings is required after Twombly and Iqbal). 26 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess only that power authorized by 27 the Constitution and statute. See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 489 (2004). Under 28 U.S.C. 1 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Cases “arise under” federal law either when 2 federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 3 necessarily turns on the construction of federal law. Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 4 F.3d 1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002). Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is based on the 5 “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a 6 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 7 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), federal 8 district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions in diversity cases “where the matter in 9 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and where the matter is between “citizens of 10 different states.” Generally speaking, diversity jurisdiction exists only where there is “complete 11 diversity” among the parties; each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each 12 of the defendants. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). 13 III. Screening the complaint. 14 A. The Court screens Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 17). 15 As a preliminary matter, the Court clarifies which complaint it screens. On August 18, 16 2025, after Plaintiff filed numerous amended complaints and motions to amend his complaint, the 17 Court granted one of Plaintiff’s motions to amend (ECF No. 13), directed the Clerk of Court to 18 file the amended complaint on the docket titled “Second Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 17), and 19 informed Plaintiff that he “ may not file any further motions to amend his complaint until after the 20 Court screens his complaint.” (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff then filed four motions to amend in 21 violation of that order (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21), which motions the court denied and struck (ECF 22 No. 22). The same day the Court denied and struck those motions, Plaintiff filed a fifth motion to 23 amend. (ECF No. 23). Because that motion again violates the Court’s order, the Court denies 24 and strikes it.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (explaining that “[i]n all other cases, a party may 25

26 1 Even if the Court allowed Plaintiff’s amendment and screened his proposed amended complaint, 27 the proposed amendment suffers from the same deficiencies as Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The Court would therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 23) for 1 amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s consent or the court’s leave”) (emphasis 2 added); see Local Rule IA 10-1(d) (explaining that the Court may strike any document that does 3 not comply with an applicable provision of the Federal Rules). The Court will screen Plaintiff’s 4 second amended complaint filed at ECF No. 17. 5 B. Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 6 7 Plaintiff generally alleges that he faced racial discrimination and retaliation between April 8 of 2024 and April of 2025 while working at an Amazon facility in Nevada. Plaintiff names 9 Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Systems, LLC; and ten Doe defendants. He brings various 10 claims under Federal and Nevada law against Defendants. However, Plaintiff’s claims are too 11 vague and conclusory for the Court to find that he has stated any claim upon which relief can be 12 granted for two reasons. 13 First, Plaintiff refers to the Defendants collectively, without identifying each Defendant 14 and the action that Defendant took that violated his rights. For example, Plaintiff alleges that in 15 September of 2024, after Plaintiff made a report, “Defendants responded with retaliatory 16 actions…” As another example, Plaintiff alleges that on December 15, 2024, “Defendants issued 17 a retaliatory notice…” But Plaintiff does not describe which Defendants took these actions. To 18 the extent Plaintiff claims that Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Systems, LLC, took these 19 actions, he must allege who at those companies took the actions he alleges and why their actions 20 are attributable to the companies. See Braswell v. U.S., 487 U.S. 99, 110 (1988) (explaining that 21 “[a]rtificial entities such as corporations may act only through their agents…”). 22 To the extent Plaintiff alleges that Doe Defendants took these actions, Plaintiff does not 23 adequately describe the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff should be aware that Rule 10(a) of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to include the names of the parties in the action. 25 As a practical matter, it is impossible in most instances for the United States Marshal or his 26 designee to serve a summons and complaint or amended complaint upon an anonymous 27 defendant. The Ninth Circuit has held that where identity is unknown prior to the filing of a 1 defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint 2 would be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 3 1999) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). Where the names of 4 individual defendants are unknown at the time a complaint is filed, a plaintiff may refer to the 5 individual unknown defendants as Defendant John (or Jane) Doe 1, John Doe 2, and so on, and 6 allege facts to support how each particular Doe defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights, including 7 when, where, and how. A plaintiff may not simply identify a group of defendants and allege that 8 the group violated his rights. A plaintiff may thereafter use the discovery process to obtain the 9 names of fictitiously-named defendants whom he believes violated his rights and seek leave to 10 amend to name those defendants. Because Plaintiff does not identify the Defendants who harmed 11 him, the Court dismisses his complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 12 Second, even if Plaintiff did specifically identify the Defendants, Plaintiff’s allegations are 13 too conclusory to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff claims that Defendants 14 took retaliatory and disciplinary actions, but does not describe what those actions were. Plaintiff 15 also vaguely alleges that Defendants made false statements about him on multiple occasions, but 16 does not describe when they made these statements, how, or why they were false. Plaintiff’s 17 vague assertions that Defendants harmed him are not sufficient to state a claim upon which relief 18 can be granted. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) does not require detailed 19 allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me- 20 accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff’s complaint only 21 contains vague assertions that Defendants unlawfully harmed him, he does not state a viable 22 claim and the Court dismisses his complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. 23 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. Plaintiff shall not be required to pre-pay the filing fee. 26 Plaintiff is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 27 any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor. This order granting leave to 1 proceed in forma pauperis shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at 2 government expense. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 17) is dismissed without 4 prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to amend. 5 Plaintiff will have until December 1, 2025, to file an amended complaint if the noted deficiencies 6 can be corrected. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff is informed that the Court 7 cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended complaint 8 complete. This is because, generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 9 Local Rule 15-1(a) requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to any 10 prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint no longer 11 serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 12 each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Failure to 13 comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 15 23) is denied. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike 17 Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 23) from the docket. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 19 a copy of this order. 20 21 DATED: October 29, 2025 22 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27