Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00955/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00955-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL L. HANSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIN NGOC LE, individually and dba D&V 

96 Cent Store Plus; VAN THI TROUNG, 

individually and dba D&V 96 Cent Store 

Plus, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-955-TLN-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

On February 13, 2020, the court the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because plaintiff’s allegations could not be reconciled with judicially 

noticeable records1

, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, by no later than February 27, 2020, why 

this action should not be dismissed as frivolous. ECF No. 7. He was also admonished that failure 

to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. 

The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order to show 

cause. 

1

 Plaintiff alleged that his rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

were violated when he visited defendants’ business in February 2018. ECF No. 5. However, the 

inmate locator website operated by the Oregon Department of Corrections reflects that plaintiff 

has been incarcerated since March of 2014. 

Case 2:19-cv-00955-TLN-EFB Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as frivolous for 

the reasons set forth in the court’s February 13, 2020 order to show cause (ECF No. 7). 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: March 31, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-00955-TLN-EFB Document 8 Filed 04/01/20 Page 2 of 2