Ferrell v. Dejoy

TERRENCE JESSE FERRELL, JR., Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, et al., Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01796-DAD-SKO

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 11, 2022

FIRST SCREENING ORDER

SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO:

(1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR

(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND MOTION TO SUBMIT RECORDING (Docs. 3, 4)

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff Terrence Jesse Ferrell, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, the United States Postal Service, Sonia Laney, Airan Lopez, and Christina Gonzales (“Defendants”), alleging wrongful termination from his position at the United States Postal Office. (Doc. 1 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on December 27, 2021. (Docs. 2 & 5.)

Plaintiff's complaint is now before the Court for screening.

Upon review, the Court concludes that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff has the following options as to how to proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, which the Court will screen in due course. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a statement with the Court stating that he wants to stand on this complaint and have it reviewed by the presiding district judge, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to the district judge consistent with this order. If Plaintiff does not file anything, the Court will recommend that the case be dismissed.

Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) and motion to submit a recording on a USB drive (“motion to submit evidence”) (Doc. 4). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff's motion to submit evidence will be denied.

B. Screening Requirement and 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 the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action 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 a 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).

The Court's screening of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is governed by the following standards. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

C. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff is a white, Christian male, who was born on February 29, 1980. (Compl. at 19.) He alleges that he was wrongfully terminated from his position with the United States Postal Office for “unacceptable conduct.” (Id. at 7.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant Laney, a manager of the Woodward Park Post Office, was lying when she accused Plaintiff of using a racial slur and making hand gestures toward her on September 21, 2020. (Id.)

Defendant Lopez, a manager of the Hughes Post Office conducted an investigation of the alleged incident. (Compl. at 7.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lopez was “not a neutral representative nor did she conduct a thorough investigation, ” in view of Plaintiff's and Lopez's “past history in which she was proven to have made false allegations in an attempt to wrongfully terminate [Plaintiff] herself.” (Id.)

Defendant Gonzales, a manager of the Clinter Post Office, “represented the formal A grievance process.” (Compl. at 7.) Plaintiff alleges that he presented evidence of a recording from September 21, 2020, to Defendant Gonzales, which proved that Plaintiff never used a racial slur against Defendant Laney. (Id.) After listening to the recording, Gonzales “stated on the record” that Plaintiff never stated the nature of Laney's accusation against him. (Id.) Nonetheless, Gonzales “still continued to allow the grievance to go on unsettled as she was instructed due to the hatred that [Defendants Lopez and Laney] harvest[ed] against [Plaintiff].” (Id.)

In the section of the complaint form in which Plaintiff is asked to identify the specific bases for federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff listed the following: “labor/management relation [sic], ” “Fair Labor Standards Act, ” “slander, ” “civil rights, ” and “False Claims Act.” (Compl. at 4.) An EEO Complaint of Discrimination in the Postal Service attached to the complaint indicates that Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, and retaliation. (Id. at 15.) Notes from the EEO Alternative Dispute Resolution Specialist assigned to Plaintiff's case similarly reflect that Plaintiff alleged “race, color, religion, sex, age, EPA discrimination when on 9/21/2020 9/20/2020 and 4/30/2021 management removed [Plaintiff].” (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff's requested relief includes reinstatement, lost wages, and one million dollars in damages for “pain and suffering.” (Id. at 7.)

D. Pleading Requirements Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

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). 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)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Since Plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of her complaint liberally and must afford her the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989).

To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.2009). The “sheer possibility” that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Shotgun Pleading

A “[s]hotgun pleading occurs when one party pleads that multiple parties did an act, without identifying which party did what specifically; or when one party pleads multiple claims, and does not identify which specific facts are allocated to which claim.” Hughey v. Drummond, No. 2:14-cv-00037-TLN-AC, 2014 WL 579365, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (citation omitted). This violates Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that “[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances, ” and Rule 8, which requires that the complaint contain a “short and plain statement” of entitlement to relief.

Here, Plaintiff's complaint simply alleges “[w]rongful termination from the United States Postal Service.” (Compl. at 7.) The only mention of any statutory or legal basis for Plaintiff's allegation of wrongful termination is in the section of the complaint form pertaining to federal question jurisdiction, under which Plaintiff lists the following: “labor/management relation [sic], ” “Fair Labor Standards Act, ” “slander, ” “civil rights, ” and “False Claims Act.” (Id. at 4.) This is not sufficient because it does not give Defendants “fair notice” of the claims against which they must defend and the facts and legal theories that give rise to the claims. Plaintiff's complaint does not clearly identify what claims he is asserting, which facts relate to which claim, or how the facts relate to the legal claims raised.

In light of these deficiencies, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint and set forth his claims more clearly. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must clearly state which claim is against which defendant and the facts that support and show that the specific defendant committed the violation asserted as the legal basis for the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

B. Legal Standards

In the event Plaintiff amends his complaint, the Court provides the following legal standards that may be relevant to his action:

1. Title VII Claims

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §...