Horton v. Sierra Conservation Center et al, No. 1:2009cv01441 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER Directing Service of the 1 Complaint on Defendant; ORDER Directing The Clerk to Forward Service Documents to Plaintiff; ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Submit Service Documents to the Court; ORDER Directing the Clerk to Forward any Service Documents Submitted by Plaintiff to the Marshal for Service of Process; ORDER Directing the Marshal to Serve the Complaint upon Receipt of Service Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 09/11/2009. Service Documents due by 10/19/2009. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Horton v. Sierra Conservation Center et al Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 JOHN D. HORTON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER, 14 Defendant. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-01441-AWI-SMS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 2) ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT (DOC. 1) ON DEFENDANT ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FORWARD SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF 16 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT 17 18 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FORWARD ANY SERVICE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF TO THE MARSHAL FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 19 20 21 ORDER DIRECTING THE MARSHAL TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT UPON RECEIPT OF SERVICE DOCUMENTS 22 23 24 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages 25 and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The 26 matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 2 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 3 4 forma pauperis, filed on August 17, 2009. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing 5 required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in 6 forma pauperis IS GRANTED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 7 8 9 II. Screening the Complaint A. Legal Standards In cases wherein the plaintiff is proceeding in forma 10 pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case and shall 11 dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the 12 allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is 13 frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 14 may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who 15 is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). 16 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all 17 civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to 18 section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 19 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a 20 complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 21 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair 23 notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon 24 which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual 25 allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 26 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 27 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 28 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 2 1 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth 2 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 3 that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 4 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are 5 accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 1949. 6 Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 7 relief is generally “a context-specific task that requires the 8 reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common 9 sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950. However, “where 10 the well-pleaded facts do not permit the Court to infer more than 11 the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint has not shown 12 that the pleader is entitled to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. 13 Ct. at 1950. 14 A claim has facial plausibility, "when the plaintiff pleads 15 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 16 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 17 alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, –U.S. –, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 18 (2009). “[F]or a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the 19 non-conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from 20 that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling 21 the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 22 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 23 If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a 24 claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the 25 deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. 26 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Dismissal 27 of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only 28 where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail on the 3 1 facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend would 2 be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128. 3 B. Plaintiff’s Complaint 4 Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Sierra Conservation Center 5 of the California Department of Corrections hired him as a 6 librarian beginning in February 2007, treated him in a hostile 7 and disrespectful manner, and terminated him wrongfully in June 8 2007. Plaintiff was a Hispanic male over the age of forty years 9 who had a Master’s degree in library science from the University 10 of Oklahoma and who was treated differently in employment than a 11 similarly situated white, female employee who was under the age 12 of forty years would be treated. Plaintiff alleges that he was 13 treated in a discriminatory manner from the beginning of 14 employment because of his ethnic background, gender, and age of 15 over forty years; his white, female, under-forty supervisor did 16 not treat him with dignity or respect and constantly interfered 17 with the operations of the library; in contrast, she never 18 directly intervened in the classroom management of other faculty 19 who were white, female, and under forty. Plaintiff was terminated 20 for the stated reasons of having received a traffic ticket away 21 from work and having omitted from the employment application 22 probationary employment, an omission which Plaintiff alleges was 23 authorized by the California State Personnel Board, but Plaintiff 24 further alleges that he was terminated because he was Hispanic, 25 male, and over the age of forty years, and a white female under 26 forty would not have been terminated for such reasons. Plaintiff 27 alleges that he was deprived of the opportunity to continue his 28 employment and was gravely humiliated by not being treated like 4 1 other employees of the defendant, and he seeks any all just, 2 legal and equitable relief that the Court can provide. 3 It was held in Swierkewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 4 (2002) that a complaint that alleged that the plaintiff had been 5 terminated on account of his national origin in violation of 6 Title VII and on account of his age in violation of the ADA, and 7 which detailed the events leading to his termination, such as 8 pertinent dates and data concerning some of the persons involved 9 in the termination, gave adequate notice of the claims and 10 grounds and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. 11 Since then the notice pleading standards have been further 12 refined in terms of the plausibility inquiry. 13 However, a fair reading of the complaint in the instant case 14 results in a reasonable inference that Defendant Sierra 15 Conservation Center is a state governmental entity engaged in an 16 industry affecting commerce with fifteen or more employees in 17 each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the 18 current or preceding year; Defendant thus appears to qualify as 19 an employer within the scope of the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 20 2000e(b); Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977). 21 Further, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to warrant 22 an inference that the employer discriminated against Plaintiff, 23 who was qualified for the job, in the terms and conditions of 24 employment on the prohibited bases of gender, race, or national 25 origin within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. 26 The Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged facts that 27 might support a claim entitling him to relief. Because the Court 28 has examined Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently to determine that 5 1 the entire action does not fail to state a claim, is not 2 frivolous, and does not merely state a claim against a defendant 3 who is immune from relief, the Court will not further analyze 4 Plaintiff’s federal or state claims. 5 III. Service of the Complaint 6 The Court will direct that the complaint be served on 7 Defendant Sierra Conservation Center. 8 9 A. Directions to the Marshal Accordingly, when appropriate service documents are 10 submitted to the Court and forwarded to the Marshal, the United 11 States Marshal SHALL SERVE the complaint. 12 13 14 B. Directions to the Clerk and to Plaintiff Service IS appropriate for the following defendant: Sierra Conservation Center. 15 Accordingly, 16 1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 17 form, one summons, an instruction sheet, a notice of submission 18 of documents, and two copies of the complaint filed in this 19 Court. 20 2) Within thirty days from the date of service of this 21 order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission 22 of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the Court with 23 the following documents: 24 a. Completed summons; 25 b. 26 listed above; and 27 c. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed in 28 this Court. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant 6 1 2 Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 3 Upon receipt of the documents described above, the Clerk of 4 the Court SHALL FORWARD them to the United States Marshal to 5 serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 7 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will 8 result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for 9 failure to obey this Court’s order. Local Rule 11-110. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 September 11, 2009 Icido3Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 /s/ Sandra M.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
