Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00220/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00220-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIGEL MARIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00220-SAB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN THIRTY 

(30) DAYS

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff Nigel Marin (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action. 

(ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to 

state any cognizable claims and should be dismissed without leave to amend.

I.

SCREENING

District courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) if the Court gives notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiffs an opportunity to 

at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 

250 F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 

(9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)). Under Rule 8(a), 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). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 

Case 1:15-cv-00220-TLN-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/12/15 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

‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ 

a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 

entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must 

accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s 

legal conclusions as true. Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555).

II.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of specific factual matter, but it appears that Plaintiff is 

attempting to sue Defendant for disability discrimination in the employment context. Plaintiff 

vaguely alleges that on or around “08/26/2013 Agency’s Management, while in the scope of 

their employment, breached their standard of care, and with knowledge of substantial certainty 

ordered Plaintiff to report to work which placed him in the Zone of Danger, after receiving a 

Medical Certificate stating Plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.” (Compl. ¶ 1.)

Although it is unclear, it appears that Plaintiff was an employee of the Social Security 

Administration, and the agency denied Plaintiff’s request for accommodation regarding his 

disability. Plaintiff does not identify what, if any, disability Plaintiff suffers from, or provide any 

details regarding the “Zone of Danger” and what sort of risk of danger it posed to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff does not identify what accommodations he requested. Plaintiff alleges that he “suffered 

harm,” but fails to provide any details regarding any harm he suffered.

Plaintiff also alleges that he filed a complaint with the EEOC, but the Social Security 

Administration lied during the investigation. Plaintiff provides no details regarding how Social 

Security lied or what they lied about. Plaintiff also makes vague allegations that Social Security 

Case 1:15-cv-00220-TLN-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/12/15 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

did not act in good faith, but fails to provide any factual details. For example, Plaintiff alleges 

that Social Security did not allow a “union rep” to be present during a meeting, but fails to 

explain how that constitutes a lack of good faith or what provision of law requires Social 

Security to allow the “union rep” to be present. Plaintiff alleges that he was “threatened” by an 

“Al Ballon,” but provides no details regarding what was said. Plaintiff further alleges that Social 

Security attempted to “assess AWOL charges, then to remove Plaintiff from his job.” (Compl. ¶ 

7.)

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s ADA Claim

Liberally construed, it appears that Plaintiff attempts to state a claim under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act for employment discrimination based upon his disability. “[T]o establish a 

prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA [Plaintiff] must show that [he]: (1) is disabled; 

(2) is qualified; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action because of [his] disability.” 

Snead v. Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff’s complaint consists entirely of vague labels and conclusions and does not 

contain sufficient factual detail to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff 

merely recited elements of a disability discrimination claim without alleging facts which show 

how those elements are met.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support 

the conclusion that he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Plaintiff alleges no facts 

pertaining to his disability. The ADA defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major life activities...” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Plaintiff alleges 

no facts which show how this definition is met.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support 

the conclusion that he “is qualified.” The ADA defines “qualified individual” as “an individual 

who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the 

employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00220-TLN-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/12/15 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

complaint fails to allege any facts identifying the essential functions of his job or whether he 

could perform those functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff does not 

identify what reasonable accommodation would entail.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support 

the conclusion that he “suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.” 

Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear, because it appears Plaintiff was terminated after Plaintiff did not 

show up to work for three months. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts explaining how this three 

month absence from work was related to his disability.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges, in conclusory fashion, that Defendant failed to engage in the 

interactive process in good faith. “Once an employer becomes aware of the need for 

accommodation, that employer has a mandatory obligation under the ADA to engage in an 

interactive process with the employee to identify and implement appropriate reasonable 

accommodations.” Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 

2001) (citing Barnett v. U.S. Air, 228 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000)). “The interactive process 

requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations between 

employers and individual employees, and neither side can delay or obstruct the process.” Id.

(citations omitted). “Employers, who fail to engage in the interactive process in good faith, face 

liability for the remedies imposed by the statute of a reasonable accommodation would have 

been possible.” Id. (citation omitted).

Aside from identifying a reasonable accommodation that would have been possible, 

Plaintiff fails to allege facts which plausibly support the conclusion that Defendant “delay[ed] or 

obstruct[ed]” the interactive process. Plaintiff alleges that a union representative was not 

allowed to be present at one meeting, but the Court is unaware of any law which suggests that 

the presence of a union representative is required. Plaintiff alleges that he was ordered to go 

back to work, but the mere fact that the interactive process did not produce an outcome 

satisfactory to Plaintiff is not sufficient in and of itself to state a claim. Plaintiff vague alleges 

that he was threatened by an “Al Ballon,” but fails to elaborate on that allegation. Plaintiff also 

alleges that his medical information was not forwarded to a medical officer, but fails to 

Case 1:15-cv-00220-TLN-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/12/15 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

demonstrate how that created delay or obstructed the interactive process.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any 

cognizable claims.

B. Leave to Amend

“Generally, Rule 15 advises the court that ‘leave [to amend the complaint] shall be freely 

given when justice so requires.’ This policy is ‘to be applied with extreme liberality.’” 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Owens v. 

Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)). The factors the Court 

should consider in deciding whether to grant leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments 

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment, and futility of the amendment. Id. at 1052.

In accordance with the “extreme liberality” with which leave to amend should be granted, 

the Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies 

identified herein.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any 

cognizable claims.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint, if any, within thirty (30) days from 

the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to file a timely amended 

complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00220-TLN-SAB Document 8 Filed 03/12/15 Page 5 of 5