Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02545/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02545-0/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 

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kevin Lewis Hobson’s Request for 

Appointment of Attorney (Doc. 4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds 

that Plaintiff has not satisfied the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and fails to state a cause of action. The Court will (i) deny Plaintiff’s Request 

for Appointment of Attorney (Doc. 4), (ii) dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) 

without prejudice, and (iii) grant Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint 

consistent with the findings the Court sets forth herein.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Request for Appointment of Attorney (Doc. 4)

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to 

the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 

F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 

269 (9th Cir. 1982). “However, a court may under ‘exceptional circumstances’ appoint

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 7
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

counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).” Palmer v. Valdez, 

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Agyeman v. Coors. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 

1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)). “When determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ 

exist, a court must consider ‘the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability 

of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved.’” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). 

“Neither of these considerations is dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” 

Palmer, 560 F3.d at 970 (citing Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 

1986)).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, nor is he 

unable to present his arguments to the Court. Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional 

circumstances are present that would require the appointment of counsel in this case. The 

Court will deny the Request for Appointment of Attorney (Doc. 4).

B. Amended Complaint (Doc. 5)

1. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaint Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised 

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” a court 

to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim); 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.”). If the Court determines that a pleading 

could be cured by the allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an 

opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 

1127-29. The standards governing pleadings are summarized as follows.

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

- 2 -

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 7
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

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 

does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the 

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual 

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

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible 

“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining 

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that 

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 

679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual allegations may be consistent with a 

constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there are other “more likely 

explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. But as the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts must “continue to construe pro se 

filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint 

[filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per 

curiam)).

2. The Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim

Plaintiff attempts to bring an employment discrimination claim against the 

Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 (“Title VII”), as codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, as well as the 

Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-

12117. The Amended Complaint supersedes the original Complaint; therefore, the Court 

treats the original Complaint as nonexistent in reviewing Plaintiff’s claims. Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

- 3 -

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 7
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

i. Title VII Claim

To proceed with a Title VII claim, Plaintiff must show that he filed a lawsuit 

within ninety days of receiving each right-to-sue notice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(f)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28(e). In addition, an EEOC claim must itself be filed 

within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. 42 U.S.C.§ 

2000e-5(e)(1). 

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges “Failure to hire me; Retaliation; 

Other (specify) USERRA.” (Doc. 5 at 2-3). Plaintiff does not allege when the alleged 

unlawful employment practices occurred or facts which describe what actually occurred 

beyond the conclusory statement “Did not hire, hired no blacks . . . [h]ired white and 

latios [sic] . . . [h]ired non-veterans over veterans . . . . ” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff indicates 

that he filed his charge with the EEOC on June 4, 2008. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff writes a 

single quotation mark in the blank intended for disclosure of the date on which the EEOC 

issued a Notice of Right to Sue Letter. (Id.). The use of a single quotation mark in the 

form Amended Complaint is ambiguous. Plaintiff has failed to attach to the Amended 

Complaint his Notice of Right to Sue Letter(s) from the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”) as required by law. Other than Plaintiff’s allegation that the acts 

of the Defendant are ongoing, the Court is unable to determine how, when, where, and by 

whom the alleged unlawful employment practices occurred or when the Notice of Right 

to Sue Letter was received as required for asserting a Title VII violation. The Court 

therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a Title VII claim.

ii. ADA Claim

Plaintiff also attempts to bring an employment discrimination claim against the 

Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs under the ADA. To establish a prima 

facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate 

that “(1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is a qualified individual 

able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation; and (3) 

he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability.” Samper v. 

- 4 -

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Allen v. 

Pac. Bell, 348 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003)). A “qualified individual” is “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). A person suffers from a disability if he or she: “(1) has a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities; 

(2) has a record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.” 

Coons v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 

Deppe v. United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 

12102(2); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g). A “major life activity” includes such activities as 

“caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, 

breathing, learning, and working.” Walton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 492 F.3d 998, 1010 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 638 (1998)).

Plaintiff sets forth no facts in support of his ADA claim in his Amended 

Complaint. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state an ADA claim.

iii. USERRA Claim

Finally, Plaintiff also references “USERRA” in his Amended Complaint. The 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) 

is codified at 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301-4335. USERRA prohibits an employer from 

discriminating against an individual on the basis of membership in the armed forces. 38 

U.S.C. §§ 4301(a)(3), 4311(a). “An employer violates USERRA if an employee's 

membership or obligation for service in the military is a motivating factor in an 

employer’s adverse employment action taken against the employee, unless the employer 

can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership or 

obligation.” Townsend v. University of Alaska, 543 F. 3d 478, 482 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing

Leisek v. Brightwood Corp., 278 F. 3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2002) and 38 U.S.C. §

4311(c)(1)). Like Title VII and the ADA, USERRA authorizes private suits for damages 

or injunctive relief against an employer. 38 U.S.C. §§ 4303(4)(A), 4323(a)(3), (b)(2)-(3).

- 5 -

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 5 of 7
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

The Plaintiff has alleged no facts in support of a cause of action under USERRA 

other than the statement “Hired non-veterans over veterans, violations of USERRA.” 

(Doc. 5 at 3). Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under USERRA.

3. Leave to Amend

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint will be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Within 30 days, Plaintiff may 

submit a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff 

must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second Amended 

Complaint.”

A second amended complaint supersedes the amended complaint. Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1262; Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 

1990). After amendment, the Court will treat both the original Complaint (Doc. 3) and 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) as nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of 

action that was raised in the Amended Complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or 

was dismissed without prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a second amended 

complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). If 

Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements 

telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name 

of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to 

do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of 

that Defendant’s conduct. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 377. Plaintiff must repeat this process 

for each person or entity he names as a Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to affirmatively link 

the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury suffered by Plaintiff, the 

allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

Conclusory allegations that a Defendant has violated a constitutional right are not 

acceptable and will be dismissed.

- 6 -

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 6 of 7
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 

Plaintiff must also allege subject matter jurisdiction by either showing his claim 

involves a controversy between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000, or a question of federal law, identifying the specific claim and what 

statute applies, if any. In addition, Plaintiff must address the deficiencies identified in 

Section I(B)(2) above. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this 

Order, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61 (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the Court). 

II. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Plaintiff’s claims fail because he does not allege facts sufficient to 

state claims against the named Defendant for which relief may be granted. Nor has 

Plaintiff set forth facts sufficient for the Court to find that the claims alleged are timely 

filed. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 5 ) is dismissed with 

permission to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than October 13, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended 

Complaint by October 13, 2016, the Clerk shall dismiss this action with prejudice without 

further Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff elects to file a Second Amended 

Complaint, he shall not serve it on Defendant until and unless the Court screens the 

Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If and when the Court 

gives Plaintiff leave to serve a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall be responsible 

for service and may do so by request for waiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of 

Attorney (Doc. 4). 

Dated this 13th day of September, 2016. 

- 7 - 

Case 2:16-cv-02545-ESW Document 10 Filed 09/14/16 Page 7 of 7