Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01354/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01354-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bar 20 Dairy Farms LLC
Defendant
Jose Murillo-Esparza
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MURILLO-ESPARZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAR 20 DAIRY FARMS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01354-SAB

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

AMEND

(ECF No. 1) 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Jose Murillo-Esparza (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

action on November 6, 2024. Plaintiff’s complaint is currently before the Court for screening. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss a case at any 

time if the Court determines the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim 

on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 

2000) (section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by 

prisoners); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma 

pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. United 

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 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

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma 

pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 

1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). 

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). 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). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 555 (2007)).

In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and 

accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 

94 (2007); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]here the 

petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, [courts should] construe the pleadings 

liberally and ... afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt” (quoting Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 

338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)).). 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘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). Therefore, the complaint must contain sufficient factual 

content for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Id. Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the 

complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. U.S., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of 

the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Plaintiff names Bar 20 Dairy LLC as the sole defendant in this action. (ECF No. 1.) 

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 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

Plaintiff states the basis for jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff lists

“wrongful termination, labor laws” as the federal statutes at issue in this action. (Id.) Despite 

indicating the case arises under federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff also completes the amount 

in controversy form question for diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff states the amount in 

controversy is “$1.5 million worked for over 20+ years, + 1 year of no employment w/o 

employment.” (Id.) (unedited).

Under statement of claim, Plaintiff writes: “1) wrongful termination; 2) emotional 

distress[;] 3) pain and suffering job was given to a relative of supervisor with less experience, 

Racism.” (Id.) (unedited).

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to 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). “Such a statement must 

simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which 

it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (citations and quotations

omitted). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements 

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678 (citation omitted). This is because, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 

Plaintiff’s allegations consist of vague and conclusory statements of “wrongful 

termination” and racism. As currently pled, Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain enough 

factual details to permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Bar 20 Dairy LLC is

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 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

liable for any misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Significantly, after naming Bar 20 

Dairy LLC as a defendant, Plaintiff does not state any specific action that the entity Defendant 

took relating to the alleged wrongful termination, violation of unspecified labor laws, racism, or 

other misconduct.

1

 For these reasons, Plaintiff's complaint does not comply with the 

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to 

allow Plaintiff to provide additional and specific factual details to the Court to state a cognizable 

claim.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction and Federal Question Jurisdiction

Rule 8(a)(1) also requires a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s 

jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their 

power to adjudicate is limited to that granted by Congress. U.S. v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 

(9th Cir. 2000). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the 

burden to establish the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Generally, there are two bases for subject 

matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

1332. Here, Plaintiff indicates his claims arise under federal question jurisdiction. However, 

Plaintiff also partially completed the portion of the form complaint for claims proceeding under 

diversity jurisdiction. The Court will therefore address each in turn.

1. Diversity Jurisdiction

District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions between citizens of different 

States in which “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This requires complete diversity of citizenship and the 

presence “of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the district 

court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow 

Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges the amount in controversy is $1.5 million, which exceeds the 

1 Plaintiff also alleges “emotional distress” and “pain and suffering”; however, it appears these allegations are 

alleged damages, not causes of action under which Plaintiff seeks relief. 

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 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

$75,000 threshold requirement for diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) However, Plaintiff 

alleges that he is a citizen of California and indicates that Bar 20 Dairy LLC is located in 

California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The Court notes that “a limited liability company ‘is a citizen of 

every state of which its owners/members are citizens,’ not the state in which it was formed or 

does business.” NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 

Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006)). Thus, the 

citizenship of each owner or member of Bar 20 Dairy LLC is required to establish diversity 

jurisdiction. As currently plead, diversity jurisdiction does not exist because Plaintiff and 

Defendant Bar 20 Dairy LLC are both alleged to be citizens of the same state. 

2. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Plaintiff also indicates jurisdiction in this action is based on a federal question. Pursuant 

to 28 U.S. C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under 

the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law either 

where federal law creates the cause of action or where the vindication of a right under state law 

necessarily turns on some construction of federal law.” Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 

277 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. 

v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1983) (citations omitted)). “[T]he 

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 

rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 

the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Republican Party of Guam, 277 F.3d at 

1089 (citations omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction arises under “wrongful termination, 

labor laws.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff’s complaint falls far short of complying with the wellpleaded complaint rule. However, should Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, the Court 

provides the following legal standards pertaining to wrongful termination and discrimination. 

Under Title VII, an employer is prohibited from discriminating against any individual 

because of the individual's race or color. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1019, 

1028 (9th Cir. 2006); see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; see also Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 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

1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (Aug. 11, 1998) (noting California law under California 

Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12900-12996 mirrors 

federal law under Title VII, thus a plaintiff can bring claims under both Title VII and FEHA).

To establish a prima facie case under Title VII and FEHA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a 

member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse 

employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated 

more favorably. Fonseca v. Sysco Food Services of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir. 

2004). 

Plaintiff's complaint contains insufficient facts and fails to state any cognizable claim for 

violation of Plaintiff's federal rights. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the above-identified 

deficiencies to the extent Plaintiff is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,

556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 

v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days, and is subject to the 

twenty-five (25) page limit set forth above.

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 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

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order; 

3. The first amended complaint, including attachments, shall not exceed twenty-five 

(25) pages in length; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend to the 

District Judge that this action be dismissed, for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01354-KES-SAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/24 Page 7 of 7