Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01402-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No.18-cv-01402-EDL 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PLAINTFF'S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; ORDER 

REASSIGNING CASE 

Plaintiff Georgette G. Purnell (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint and Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on March 2, 2018. As of this date, Plaintiff has not consented or 

declined magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On March 13, 2018, this 

Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP request and indicated that it would separately determine compliance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court issues this Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the district court DIMSISS Plaintiff’s complaint with leave 

to amend. This case is hereby REASSIGNED to a District Judge. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor, by a 

person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security therefor.” In 

reviewing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte if 

the court determines that the party applying for in forma pauperis status has filed a frivolous action 

or that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 

Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). Dismissal on these grounds is often made 

sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the 

inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

324 (1989). 

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (“Defendant”) discriminated 

against her based on race, sex, and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Title VII provides that employers may not “discriminate against any individual with respect to his 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, 

color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.2000e–2(a)(1). To establish federal subject 

matter jurisdiction , the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies before seeking 

adjudication of at Title VII claim in court. Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th Cir. 

2002). A plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient if it contains a short and plain statement showing that 

she is entitled to relief. Guevara v. Marriott Hotel Servs. Inc., No. C 10-5347 SBA, 2013 WL 

1164961, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2013) (Armstrong, J.) (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 

534 U.S. 506, 509 (2002)). 

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated her employment on the bases of race or color, 

sex, and national origin. Comp. ¶¶ 4-5. However, her complaint is insufficient because it does not 

include any facts to support those conclusory allegations. It is also not clear that Plaintiff has 

exhausted her administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite to filing a complaint under Title 

VII. Accordingly, the Court recommends DISMISSING Plaintiff's complaint. Because Plaintiff 

is proceeding pro se, the Court recommends giving her an opportunity to amend her complaint. 

Plaintiff may wish to seek free legal advice by calling the Legal Help Center at 415-782-8982 or 

by signing up for an appointment at the Legal Help Center, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, 

Room 2796, San Francisco, California 94102. The litigant can speak with an attorney who will 

provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. 

 Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court's order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 13, 2018 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-01402-PJH Document 7 Filed 03/13/18 Page 2 of 2