Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01666-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAS HEZEKIAH TAFARI,

Plaintiff,

v.

YVETTE TUCKER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 8)

Plaintiff Ras Hezekiah Tafari, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil 

action on September 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On May 15, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and found that plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state his sole federal claim 

brought in this action—a federal claim for employment discrimination on account of religion 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2. (Doc. No. 5 at 2.) The gravamen 

of plaintiff’s claim is that defendant Federal Express Corporation “violated federal law by 

rescinding his job offer when, for religious reasons, he did not provide his Social Security number 

on an employment form.” (Id. at 1.) The magistrate judge explained that plaintiff’s Title VII 

claim is not cognizable because “accommodating [plaintiff’s] religious beliefs would be an undue 

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 04/03/24 Page 1 of 3
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

hardship on defendants as a matter of law.” (Id. at 3–4) (citing cases). Plaintiff was nevertheless 

granted leave to file a second amended complaint, which he did on June 16, 2023. (Doc. No. 6.)

On January 16, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint and again found that plaintiff’s allegations that defendant refused to hire him because 

he would not provide his social security number are insufficient to state a cognizable Title VII 

religious discrimination claim. (Doc. No. 8.) The magistrate judge again explained that plaintiff 

failed to state a cognizable Title VII religious discrimination claim because “defendant would 

violate federal law if it were to hire plaintiff without obtaining a social security number; [thus,] 

requiring defendant to do so would, as a matter of law, impose an undue [burden] on defendant.” 

(Id. at 2–3) (citing Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(rejecting a claim that failure to hire for want of a social security number violated Title VII and 

holding that “an employer is not liable under Title VII when accommodating an employee’s 

religious beliefs would require the employer to violate federal or state law”)). Further, because 

plaintiff had already been granted an opportunity to amend his allegations, the magistrate judge 

recommended that plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 

(Id. at 3.)

The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice 

that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) On 

January 24, 2024, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. 

No. 9.)

In his objections, plaintiff primarily repeats the allegations included in his first amended 

complaint, which the magistrate judge already address in the pending findings and 

recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections are also largely conclusory in nature, e.g., “plaintiff’s 

complaint provides enough facts” (Doc. No. 9 at 1), and do not address the Ninth Circuit 

decisions that the magistrate judge cited and discussed in both the screening order and the 

findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s objections simply provide no basis upon which to 

reject the pending findings and recommendations.

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 3
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s 

objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 

record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 8) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim for 

relief; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 04/03/24 Page 3 of 3