Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02121/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02121-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nabors Industries, Ltd.
Defendant
Anthony Taylor
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

NABORS INDUSTRIES, LTD., 

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:09-cv-2121-AWI-JLT

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Document 2)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave

Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2612, et seq. On December 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2.)

I. IFP Motion

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s IFP motion, wherein he reports that he is unemployed and

has no income or assets, satisfies the indigency requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court

further finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of commencing this action. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s IFP motion is granted.

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 5
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

II. Complaint

A. Screening

The Court is required to review a case filed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The

Court must review the complaint and dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim on 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)(B); see Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448

(9 Cir. 1987 (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 (9 Cir. 1984)). If the Court th th

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent

that the deficiencies of the complaint may be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1127-28 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

i. Rule 8(a)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which provides in relevant part that:

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless

the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional

support; 

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief; and 

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or

different types of relief.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy. Nevertheless, a

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the plaintiff’s claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). In

other words, the plaintiff is required to give the defendants fair notice of what constitutes the

plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Although a complaint need not outline all

of the elements of a claim, it must be possible to infer from the allegations that all of the

elements exist and that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under a viable legal theory. Walker v.

South Cent. Bell Telephone Co., 904 F.2d 275, 277 (5th Cir. 1990). Conclusory allegations that

are unsupported by facts are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983. Sherman v. Yakahi, 549

F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1977). 

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 5
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

B. Analysis

i. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that in January 2005, he was hired by Defendant to work as an “oil well

puller.” On April 24, 2008, he alleges he sustained a physical injury to his hand and sought

treatment from a physician designated by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that this injury aggravated

pre-existing medical conditions namely, gout and hypertension.

On June 17, 2008, Plaintiff states he received a letter from Defendant informing him of

its policy that if any employee is away from work for more than 84 consecutive days, the

employee faces termination. He alleges that he is an employee within the meaning of the FMLA,

and that despite the fact that Defendant was notified and aware of his taking leave pursuant to the

FMLA, he was nevertheless unlawfully “retaliated, discharged and/or unlawfully interfered with”

in his employment.

In his prayer, Plaintiff seeks an order restoring “any and all medical and employment

benefits rightfully due” and compensation from Defendant in the amount of $ 250,000.00 for

“any and all lost wages that have been wrongfully denied to [him].”

ii. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cause of action under the FMLA

Plaintiff alleges that both he and Defendant are subject to the provisions of the FMLA. 

29 U.S.C. § 2617(a) permits a covered employee to file a civil action against a covered employer

for damages for “any wages, salary, employment benefits, or other compensation denied or lost”

and “equitable relief” resulting from the employer’s interference in the employee’s rights under

the FMLA, including the right to up to 12 work weeks of leave due to “a serious health condition

that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29

U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that after notifying Defendant of his inability to work due to his

physical condition and of his rights under the FMLA, he was nevertheless informed that he

would be discharged if he was away from work for more than 84 days and, subsequently, was

discharged. However, in light of 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)’s cap of 12-weeks leave during any 12-

month period, it is unclear that Defendant’s policy of discharge after 84 days away from work is

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 5
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

inconsistent with the provisions of the FMLA, or that Defendant’s policy, as applied to Plaintiff,

violated the Act. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff’s prayer for $250,000 damages does not appear to be limited

only to compensatory damages. Farrell v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist., 530 F.3d 1023, 1025

[“It is well-settled that the FMLA, by its terms, ‘only provides for compensatory damages and

not punitive damages.’”]

The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to address the above

deficiencies. Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint specifying

precisely how the circumstances in his case state of cause of action under the FMLA. Plaintiff is

informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff’s amended

complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself

without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supercedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. 1967). Once th

Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint IS DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND; and

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to

file and amended complaint. The amended complaint must reference the

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled a “First Amended

Complaint.”

///

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 Page 4 of 5
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

Failure to file and amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 7 Filed 01/25/10 Page 5 of 5