Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02545/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02545-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kevin Lewis Hobson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Robert McDonald, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-02545-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11). On July 6, 

2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, screened Plaintiff’s Complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 

curing deficiencies noted by the Court (Doc. 2). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 

(Doc.5) which failed to cure the deficiencies noted by the Court. Rather than screen the 

Amended Complaint, the Court transferred the action to the United States District Court 

for the District of Arizona (Doc. 6). Upon receipt of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, this 

Court screened the Amended Complaint as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

The Court dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted and again granted Plaintiff leave to amend to cure the deficiencies 

contained in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The Court further ordered that the 

second amended complaint may not be served until the Court screens it. The Court finds 

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 12 Filed 12/02/16 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 

that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is substantially the same as his original and 

Amended Complaints and does not cure the defects identified in the Court’s prior Orders. 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 

 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the Court’s September 14, 2016 Order 

(Doc. 10) and July 6, 2016 Order (Doc. 2), 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is 

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case. 

 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 12 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2