Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00306-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Hill
Plaintiff
PeopleReady, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

KENNETH HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLEREADY, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE 

COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. Nos. 7, 12)

Plaintiff Kenneth Hill is proceeding pro se in this civil action, which defendant removed 

to this federal court on February 17, 2023. (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 18, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 7) be 

denied because both of plaintiff’s proposed additional claims would fail. (Doc. No. 12 at 4–5.) 

First, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s proposed retaliation claim under Title VII would 

not be cognizable because “he alleges defendant retaliated against him after [he] threatened to 

report the company’s failure to pay wages to the Labor Department, and Title VII does not protect 

against this kind of act.” (Id. at 4.) Second, as for plaintiff’s claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging that defendant violated his First Amendment free speech rights, the magistrate 

Case 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN Document 15 Filed 06/21/23 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

judge found that plaintiff’s proposed clarifications would not save that claim from dismissal 

because defendant PeopleReady is a private entity and was not acting under color of state law. 

(Id. at 5.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s § 1983 claim be 

dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. (Id.) In addition, the magistrate 

judge recommended that the Doe defendants be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim. (Id.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (Id. at 6.) On June 9, 2023, plaintiff filed objections to the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 13.) Defendant filed a response thereto but did not file objections 

of its own. (Doc. No. 14.)

In his objections, plaintiff states that the clarification he seeks to make in his complaint is 

that his First Amendment claim is not “founded on” § 1983 but is rather based on the United 

States Constitution. (Doc. No. 13.) This clarification does not save plaintiff’s claim from 

dismissal, however, because defendant is a private entity, not a government actor, and thus 

plaintiff cannot state a cognizable First Amendment free speech claim against defendant. See

Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926 (2019) (“The 

Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment constrains governmental actors and protects private 

actors.”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections provide no basis upon which to reject the pending 

findings and recommendations.

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 and defendant’s response, 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 May 18, 2023 (Doc. No. 12) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 7) is denied;

/////

Case 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN Document 15 Filed 06/21/23 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

3. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is dismissed without leave to amend due to plaintiff’s 

failure to state a cognizable claim;

4. The Doe defendants named in plaintiff’s operative original complaint are 

dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim 

against the Doe defendants;

5. This action proceeds on plaintiff’s claim brought under California Labor Code 

§ 98.6 against defendant PeopleReady; and

6. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2023 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00306-DAD-KJN Document 15 Filed 06/21/23 Page 3 of 3