Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02319/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02319-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 - 10cv2319

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEZAR CARVAJAL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV2319 DMS (AJB)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE

GRANTED PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

vs.

PRIDE INDUSTRIES,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

and an amended request for appointment of counsel. (Docs. 5, 7.) On November 18, 2010, the Court

issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissing

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Doc. 4.) The

Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before December 10, 2010, and

Plaintiff filed his FAC on December 3, 2010. 

Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, his FAC is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review

and dismissal by the Court to the extent it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc). Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing a

complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss

Case 3:10-cv-02319-GPC-MDD Document 9 Filed 01/11/11 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

- 2 - 10cv2319

before directing that the complaint be served by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

As currently pleaded, Plaintiff’s FAC is subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Although Plaintiff

attaches to his FAC a copy of a charge of discrimination filed by him with the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, the FAC itself contains no facts in support of Plaintiff’s allegations of

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII. The FAC merely alleges “[d]isabilitybased discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, interference,

and retaliation in violation of the ADA; national origin and sex discrimination, and retaliation in

violation of Title VII.” Such a pleading, without additional factual allegations, is insufficient to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court hereby finds that Plaintiff’s FAC

must be dismissed. 

TheComplaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint on or before January 31, 2011.

Plaintiff’s amended request for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02319-GPC-MDD Document 9 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 2