Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00268/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00268-0/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:

(1) GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS, (ECF NO. 2);

(2) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

ACTION PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

(3) DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL, (ECF NO. 3)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint for disability discrimination,

along with motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos.

1, 2, 3.)

All partiesinstituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of

$350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to

prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th

Cir. 1999).

14cv0268

Case 3:14-cv-00268-GPC-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Here, Plaintiff declares he has been unemployed since June 2012 and that his

current income consists only of $675 per month in disability or workers compensation

funds. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff declares he has only $50 in a checking account and that

his only other asset is a financed 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser with an outstanding balance

of $15,000. Based on this information, the Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently

demonstrated his inability to pay the required filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will

grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis.

Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed

by any person seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

issubject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent

it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Section 1915 mandates that a court reviewing

a complaint filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis provisions of section 1915 make

and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the complaint be served by

the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures, Rule 4(c)(2). Lopez,

203 F.3d at 1127.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint. 

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under

Rule 12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean

Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 326 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis

of a dispositive issue of law.”). Alternatively, a complaint may be dismissed where it

presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory. 

Robertson, 749 F.2d at 534. While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual

allegations,” he must plead sufficient facts that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007).

2 14cv0268

Case 3:14-cv-00268-GPC-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/19/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Here, the body of Plaintiff’s Complaint states, in its entirety, “Plaintiff alleges:

Disability Discrimination.” (ECF No. 1.) Attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is a

“Charge of Discrimination” that Plaintiff apparently submitted to the U.S. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and California’s Department of Fair

Employment and Housing. Also attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is a “Dismissal and

Notice of Rights” from the EEOC, stating: “Your charge was not timely filed with the

EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged

discrimination to file your charge.” While the foregoing documents were attached to

Plaintiff’s Complaint, they were neither mentioned nor incorporated by reference into

the body of Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court may still, however, consider these

documentsin determining whether Plaintiff has stated a claim. Durning v. First Boston

Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff asserts in the “Charge of Discrimination” that he believes Defendant

terminated his employment “due to [his] accident on June 20, 2012.” Plaintiff alleges

he “had a[n] accident [on] June 20, 2012, which [he] reported to the store supervisor

Sun Chang on June 20, 2012 and [his] Union (BCTGM) on June 21, 2012 by mail to

cover [his] Weingarten Rights.” Plaintiff alleges Vons terminated his employment on

June 27, 2012, “with a reason being [that he] failed [his] probationary period.”

Plaintiffthen goes on to describe how Defendant violated Plaintiff’s WeingartenRights

by questioning Plaintiff about his accident without a union representative present

despite Plaintiff’s request that such a representative be present.

While Plaintiff alleges “disability discrimination,” nowhere does Plaintiff assert

which anti-disability discrimination law Defendant allegedly violated. Indeed, the few

assertions contained in the “Charge of Discrimination” attached to Plaintiff’s

Complaint refer to Plaintiff’s Weingarten Rights. These rights, however, pertain to an

employee’s right to have a union representative present at an investigatory interview

that the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. See NLRB

v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim

3 14cv0268

Case 3:14-cv-00268-GPC-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/19/14 Page 3 of 4
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

for disability discrimination because Plaintiff has failed to (1) identify which antidisability discrimination law(s) forms the basis of his claims, and (2) plead sufficient

facts demonstrating Plaintiff is entitled to relief under that law(s). Accordingly, the

Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court will, however, permit Plaintiff to

file an amended complaint to overcome these deficiencies.

Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court will deny as moot

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel at this time.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (ECF No. 2), is

GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an AMENDED COMPLAINT. If

Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, he shall do so on or before

March 21, 2014. Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint must

be complete in itself, including any attachments, without reference to the

original complaint. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987). If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint on or before March

21, 2014, this action shall remain dismissed without further order by the

Court.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, (ECF No. 3), is DENIED AS

MOOT.

DATED: February 19, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 14cv0268

Case 3:14-cv-00268-GPC-BLM Document 4 Filed 02/19/14 Page 4 of 4