Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01666-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAS HEZEKIAH TAFARI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

ECF No. 6

Plaintiff brings this action against Federal Express Corporation, alleging that this 

defendant violated his rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by forcing him to 

provide a social security number in order to secure employment—a policy to which he objects on 

the basis of his religious beliefs. ECF No. 6 at 16-18. This allegation fails to state a claim, and I 

recommend that the complaint be dismissed.

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or 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. Id. 

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/16/24 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

2

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that applying for or using a federal social security number would violate 

his sincerely held religious convictions. ECF No. 6 at 1. Specifically, he claims that defendant 

Federal Express Corporation violated his rights under Title VII when it declined to hire him based 

on his failure to provide a social security number. Id. at 1-2. I assume for the purposes of 

screening that plaintiff has made a prima facie case of religious discrimination. That is, his 

convictions against using a social security number are sincere, that he informed defendant of his 

belief, and that defendant refused to hire him due to his failure to provide or use a social security 

number. See Tiano v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 1998). In this case, 

however, defendant would violate federal law if it were to hire plaintiff without obtaining a social 

security number; requiring defendant to do so would, as a matter of law, impose an undue on 

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/16/24 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

3

defendant. See 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”); see also Hommel v. 

Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 89 F. App’x 650, 651 (9th Cir. 2004). Although an undue hardship 

defense is generally not taken up at the screening stage, it is appropriate to consider the defense 

here, where the defense’s “success is obvious from the face of the complaint or from judicially 

noticeable materials.” Bolden-Hardge v. Off. of California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1224 

(9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Given that plaintiff cannot succeed on his claim without changing its fundamental nature,

and that he has already been granted leave to amend his complaint, I conclude that granting 

further leave to amend would be futile. See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s second amended complaint, 

ECF No. 6, be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/16/24 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

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01666-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 4