Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00878/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00878-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corcoran State Prison
Defendant
Fred King
Plaintiff
Walden House
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORCORAN STATE PRISON;

WALDEN HOUSE,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00878-LJO-SKO

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S

COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE 

TO AMEND

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS 

Plaintiff Fred King ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se with an action for damages under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Initially,

Plaintiff filed two (2) complaints. The first complaint named Corcoran State Prison as a

defendant and was filed as Case No. 1:10-cv-00878-LJO-SKO. The second complaint contained

identical allegations, but it named Walden House as a defendant and was filed as Case No. 1:10-

cv-00879-OWW-GSA. On May 25, 2010, the Court ordered that these two cases be

consolidated under the case number of the earlier filed complaint (Case No. 1:10-cv-00878-LJOSKO); ordered that the caption of that case read "Fred King v. Corcoran State Prison, Walden

House;" and ordered that Case No. 1:10-cv-00879-OWW-GSA be closed. 

1

Case 1:10-cv-00878-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/22/10 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

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to

screen each case, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation

of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

B. Legal Standard

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question (Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976)), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

When a plaintiff appears pro se, the court has an obligation to construe the plaintiff's

complaint liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Pro se plaintiffs in a civil rights action must be afforded the benefit of any doubt. See KarimPanahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). "[B]efore dismissing a

pro se civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim, the district court must give the plaintiff a

statement of the complaint's deficiencies." Id. 

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Under Title VII

Title VII has administrative exhaustion requirements that must be met prior to filing a

court action. Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 1995). A person seeking relief

2

Case 1:10-cv-00878-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/22/10 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

under Title VII must first file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice or, if the person initially

instituted proceedings with the state or local administrative agency, within 300 days of the

alleged unlawful employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). If the EEOC does not bring

suit based on the complaint, the EEOC will issue a “right to sue letter.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e-5(f)(1). A person has ninety (90) days to file suit following receipt of this letter. Id.

Plaintiff has not stated whether he has exhausted this administrative process. As

explained above, Plaintiff must do this before he can institute suit in federal court under Title

VII. If Plaintiff has exhausted his remedies with the EEOC and the agency has issued a "right to

sue letter," Plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint accordingly and refile it. In that case,

Plaintiff shall attach any documents regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies to the

amended complaint including the initial complaint filed with the EEOC. Plaintiff shall provide

documentation that clearly establishes that he has timely filed a claim in federal court in

compliance with the regulations outlined above in order for this claim to be cognizable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Plaintiff SHALL file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this

order. Plaintiff is granted an opportunity to show that the administrative exhaustion requirements

under Title VII have been met. If Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim, the Court may

recommend that the entire action be dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, failure to comply

with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:10-cv-00878-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3