Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01113-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denny's Restaurant, Corp.
Defendant
HYE Foods
Defendant
Jessy
Defendant
Jeff Rowland
Defendant
Jermany Devon Thomas
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERMANY DEVON THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNY'S RESTAURANT, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 

AND CLOSE THIS ACTION

(Doc. 18)

OBJECTIONS DUE 21 DAYS

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint 

alleging four causes of action against Defendant Denny's Restaurant, Corp. ("Denny's"). (Doc. 1). 

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (Doc. 9.) As 

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the FAC was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 

and was dismissed with leave to amend. On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second 

Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which was also dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 14.) On 

February 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint ("TAC"). (Doc. 15.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 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

2

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS (1) Plaintiff's claims 

against Denny's Restaurant, Corp., HYE Foods, Jeff Rowland, and "Jessy" be dismissed with 

prejudice; (2) the claims against all defendants identified in the TAC be DISMISSED without 

prejudice to refiling in a separate lawsuit; and (3) this case be closed. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's original complaint was filed on July 20, 2015, naming Denny's Restaurant Corp. 

as a Defendant. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on July 31, 

2015, and Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September 18, 2015. (Doc. 9.) The 

substantive allegations of the FAC identified Denny's Restaurant, Corp., HYE Foods, Jeff 

Rowland, and "Jessy" as Defendants (collectively "Denny's Defendants") who were alleged to 

have slandered and discriminated against Plaintiff during his course of employment at Denny's. 

(Doc. 9.) 

In screening Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, the Court summarized the 

factual allegations as follows:

The complaint alleges Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the Americans 

with Disabilities Act ("ADA") because he has been diagnosed with Asperger's 

Syndrome, which is a form of Autism. Plaintiff alleges that Denny's, his 

employer, discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. (Doc. 9, ¶¶ 4-

5.) Plaintiff filed two "informal" complaints against his supervisors, two "formal 

complaints" against his supervisors with an area field manager and with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Doc. 9, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges 

he suffered an adverse employment decision because of the complaints he made, 

and he was subject to a "very hostile work environment in which guests and 

employees alike deliberately attempted to force the plaintiff out of work by 

humiliation, general harassment, emotional abuse, and terror." (Doc. 9, ¶ 5.)

On January 17, 2015, Plaintiff alleges that someone named "Jessy" and 

"two potential enjoining adverse litigants in this matter" made disparaging 

statements to "entering guests" about Plaintiff which were "false and alarming." 

(Doc. 9, ¶¶ 7-9.)

(Doc. 10, 2:4-16.) On September 30, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's 

complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim under the ADA or any state law claims. (Doc. 

10.)

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 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

3

On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an SAC which attempted to set forth several 

additional claims against the named Defendants. No claims were found cognizable against the 

Denny's Defendants, and Plaintiff's complaint was against dismissed with a final opportunity to 

amend. (Doc. 17.)

On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a TAC, but the case caption identifies the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") as a defendant, and does not name any of 

the defendants originally named in this action. (Doc. 18.) In the body of the complaint, Plaintiff 

identifies other defendants, including Club One Casino; "MiMi," a supervisor employed by Club 

One Casino; Table 19 – a card dealer at Club One Casino; Susan Rodriquez, a state parole agent 

employed by CDCR; Doe 3, a staff member employed by Regional Behavioral Health Center; 

Kevin Renshaw, a state parole agent; and Kevin Conrich, a state parole agent. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 8-15.)

Plaintiff alleges facts regarding an incident on October 2, 2015, when he received a 

"portion of a corrupted record" sent to Plaintiff by the California Department of Corrections 

Division of Adult Parole Operations. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 17-18.) According to Plaintiff, the document 

"invaded [Plaintiff's] legally cognizable interest and would have been a basis to deny his right to a 

parent-child relationship as it was "absolutely false" and "completely alarming." (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 17-

18.)

Plaintiff next alleges facts related to an incident on June 3, 2015, when he was instructed 

by Susan Rodriquez, his parole officer, to be at the Visalia Rescue Mission where she would meet 

Plaintiff, but she "never showed." (Doc. 18, ¶ 21.) Plaintiff complained to Rodriquez that her 

"erratic instructions" continued to place him in danger. On June 10, 2015, Plaintiff alleges 

Rodriquez seized Plaintiff without a warrant and transported him to Fresno County and confined 

him within a rehabilitation facility five days before summer classes began at Plaintiff's new 

school. (Doc. 18, ¶ 23.)

Plaintiff then describes an encounter he had at Club One Casino where Plaintiff was 

disparaged by a card dealer. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 25-28.) A casino supervisor then took Plaintiff's cellular 

phone, and Plaintiff was ejected from the casino. (Doc. 18, ¶ 29.)

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 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

4

Plaintiff then describes an involuntarily detention for a psychological evaluation where he 

was involuntarily medicated. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 30-33.) The remaining allegations are not entirely 

coherent. Plaintiff alleges various claims against these defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

III. 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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must 

contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed 

factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

557). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that is ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . 

‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations 

contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Id. 

"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Allegations of a pro se 

complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 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

5

B. Plaintiff's Complaint Should Be Dismissed and this Case Should Be Closed

1. Claims Against Denny's Defendants Should Be Dismissed With Prejudice

Regarding the Denny's Defendants, Plaintiff sets forth no allegations in his TAC related to 

their conduct. These original Denny's Defendants are neither identified in the caption of the TAC

nor in the substantive allegations; thus they are no longer parties to the case. Cf. Rice v. Hamilton 

Air Force Base Commissary, 270 F.2d 1082, (9th Cir. 1984) ("a party may be properly in a case if 

the allegations in the body of the complaint make it plain that the party is intended as a 

defendant"). Additionally, none of the claims against the new defendants relate back to the 

original complaint because none of the claims in the TAC arise from the same conduct or 

transaction originally pled. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that all complaints contain a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. After multiple opportunities 

to amend, it is clear Plaintiff cannot marshal sufficient facts to state any cognizable claim against 

the original Denny's Defendants. See Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 

2002). As such, the claims against the Denny's Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Claims Against Defendants Named in the TAC Should Be Dismissed Without 

Prejudice to Refiling in a New Action

The TAC includes unrelated claims against wholly unrelated defendants based on separate 

factual scenarios that occurred at different times and places. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

set forth the rules regarding joinder of parties. Under Rule 20, which governs joinder of parties, a 

plaintiff may join defendants if (1) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or 

with respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions; and (2) there is a 

common question of law or fact to all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A), (B). However, 

"[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the 

sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure" that any 

required filing fees are paid. George v. Smith, 507 F. 3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 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

6

Plaintiff's claims in the TAC pertain to defendants unrelated to the Denny's Defendants and

do not conform with Rule 20. The defendants named in the TAC have no connection to the

Denny's Defendants, and the allegations of the TAC do not relate to employment discrimination 

arising from events at a Denny's Restaurant, as originally pled. 

For example, the TAC alleges conduct of various defendants during an incident at Club 

One Casino, but then asserts claims against parole agents and employees of CDCR related to 

wholly separate events occurring at wholly separate points in time. There are also allegations that 

appear related to professionals who administered care during Plaintiff's involuntary psychiatric 

hospitalization. (See Doc. 18, ¶ 12.) Because Plaintiff is alleging separate factual events that are 

unrelated, the claims against Club One Casino defendants belong in a separate complaint from the 

claims against various parole agents and employees of CDCR or from the claims against any 

professionals for care during any hospitalization, each subject to separate filing fees and screening 

requirements, if Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis in those separate actions.

In sum, the claims against the defendants named in the TAC should be dismissed without 

prejudice to refiling in new and separate complaints. George, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) 

("Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not 

be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits."). 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds Plaintiff's complaint does not state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff's claims against Denny's Restaurant, Corp., HYE Foods, Jeff Rowland, 

and "Jessy" be dismissed with prejudice;

2. Plaintiff's claims against all defendants named in the TAC should be dismissed 

without prejudice to filing in a separate lawsuit; and 

3. This action should be closed.

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 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

7

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within twenty-one 

(21) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01113-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 02/09/16 Page 7 of 7