Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00268/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00268-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHASE HAYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

VONS RETAIL STORE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:14-cv-0268-GPC-BLM

ORDER SUA SPONTE

DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

On February 5, 2014, plaintiffChase Hayes, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

against defendant Vons Retail Store for “disability discrimination.” (ECF No. 1.) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), district courts are required to screen pro se

complaints for legal and factual sufficiency. 

On February 19, 2014, the Court conducted the required screening and

determined Plaintiff’s initial Complaint failed to state a claim for disability

discrimination because Plaintiff “failed to (1) identify which anti-disability

discrimination law(s) forms the basis of his claims, and (2) plead sufficient facts

demonstrating Plaintiff is entitled to relief under that law(s).” (ECF No. 4.) Indeed,

without additional facts, the Court was, and still is, unable to determine the basis for

its subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court thus afforded plaintiff an opportunity to file

an amended complaint to remedy these deficiencies. 

14cv0268

Case 3:14-cv-00268-GPC-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/04/14 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

On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges, in its entirety, “Defendant Vons Retail

Store, hired Plaintiff Chase Hayes with a disability. When the disability was

aggravated on the job, defendant fired plaintiff.” (Id.) It is thus clear that Plaintiff’s

First Amended Complaint does not correct the deficiencies of his initial pleading. 

More specifically, the First Amended Complaint does not explain which anti-disability

discrimination law(s) Plaintiff is suing under or include sufficient factual allegations

demonstrating he is entitled to relief under that law(s). Indeed, Plaintiff does not even

make a demand for relief. The Court istherefore still unable to determine any basis for

its subject-matter jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 5), is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. The Court will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity to remedy the

pleading deficiencies described in this Order. If Plaintiff wishes to file a

second amended complaint, he must do so on or before March 28, 2014. 

Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint must be complete in

itself, including any attachments, without reference to previous

complaints. Plaintiff is further advised that, if he chooses to file an

amended complaint that again fails to correct the pleading

deficiencies described in this Order, the amended complaint will be

dismissed with prejudice (that is, without leave to amend).

3. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint by March 28, 2014,

this action shall remain dismissed without further order by the Court.

DATED: March 4, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2 14cv0268

Case 3:14-cv-00268-GPC-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 2