Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02508/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tomas Ramos, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Walmart, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-02508-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3). The Court has concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint should

be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served. For the

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without

Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 3) will be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) will be

dismissed with permission to file an amended complaint by December 23, 2010.

I. Legal Standards

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district court “shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the “allegation of poverty is untrue”

or that the “action or appeal” is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

Case 2:10-cv-02508-NVW Document 4 Filed 11/29/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners

can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.

2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also clear that

section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis

complaint that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma

pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. 

“[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous

where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989). Furthermore, “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts

alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are

judicially recognized facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,

33 (1992). “A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire to harm another.”

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure governs whether the complaint has sufficiently stated a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

B. Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

A complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). It must also include “a demand for the relief

sought . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). Finally, a complaint must contain “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Each claim must be stated in a separate count. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837,

840-41 (9th Cir. 2000). The complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Even

where a complaint has the factual elements of a cause of action present but scattered

throughout the complaint and not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,”

Case 2:10-cv-02508-NVW Document 4 Filed 11/29/10 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

it may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864

F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). In in forma pauperis proceedings, a district court “shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action ... fails to state a claim

on which relief can be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

II. Analysis

In this case, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8

because his suit appears to be time barred. Plaintiff’s complaint, although short on specific

factual allegations and cognizable legal theories, can be read to state a claim for unlawful

dismissal based on racial discrimination. However, Plaintiff also attaches to his complaint

a notice letter he received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

dated May 29, 2009. In this letter, the EEOC informed Plaintiff that it had conducted a

preliminary review of his case but would not investigate his claims further. The letter

notified Plaintiff that he had the right to pursue his claims further by bringing suit in federal

court. The EEOC also explicitly warned Plaintiff in the letter that he must file suit within

ninety days of either the attempted delivery of the notice at his last known address or the date

Plaintiff received the notice, whichever was earlier, in order to maintain his claim.

In the Ninth Ciruit, “[w]e measure the start of the limitations period from the date on

which a right-to-sue notice letter arrived at the claimant’s address of record.” Payan v.

Aramark Mgm’t Serv., 495 F.3d 1119, 1222 (9th Cir. 2007). In Payan, the Court explained

that “[w]here the actual date of receipt [of the right-to-sue notice letter] is unknown but

receipt itself is not disputed,” the letter is presumed to have arrived within three days of its

issuance. Id. It therefore appears that the ninety day limitations period has expired and that

Plaintiff has lost his rights to pursue this claim.

Further, Plaintiff’s complaint could be read to allege violations of the Fair Labor

Standards Act (FLSA). However, since the FLSA violations Plaintiff alleges occurred more

than three years before Plaintiff filed his complaint, that claim is also time-barred. See 29

U.S.C. § 255(a); see also Dent v. Cox Comm. Las Vegas, Inc., 502 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir.

Case 2:10-cv-02508-NVW Document 4 Filed 11/29/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

2007) (noting three-year statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

III. Leave to Amend

If a defective complaint can be cured, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the complaint

before the action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127-30. Therefore, Plaintiff will be

given an opportunity, if he so chooses, to amend his complaint to make clear his allegations

in short, plain statements with each claim for relief identified in separate sections. Each

claim of an alleged violation must be set forth in a separate count and the factual allegations

must be separately-numbered. The complaint must set forth a claim for which relief can be

granted in conformity with the requirements of Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff is warned that if he elects to file an amended complaint and if he fails to

comply with the Court’s instructions explained in this order, the action will be dismissed

pursuant to section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal with prejudice of prolix,

argumentative, and redundant amended complaint that did not comply with Rule 8(a));

Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming

dismissal of amended complaint that was “equally as verbose, confusing, and conclusory as

the initial complaint”); Corcoran v. Yorty, 347 F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1965) (affirming

dismissal without leave to amend second complaint that was “so verbose, confused and

redundant that its true substance, if any, [was] well disguised”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted without prepayment of costs or fees or the necessity of giving

security therefore. Plaintiff shall be responsible for service by waiver of the summons and

complaint.

Case 2:10-cv-02508-NVW Document 4 Filed 11/29/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for

failure to comply with Rule 8, with permission to file an amended complaint by December

23, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects not to file an amended complaint

by December 23, 2010, the Clerk shall dismiss this action without further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint,

the complaint may not be served until and unless the court screens the amended complaint

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

DATED this 29th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02508-NVW Document 4 Filed 11/29/10 Page 5 of 5