United States District Court, D. Nevada
WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff Brittany Robinson brings this lawsuit regarding a
dispute she is having with her former employer. Robinson
moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (IFP Application
(ECF No. 2).) Robinson submitted the affidavit required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees or
costs or give security for them. Robinson's request to
proceed in forma pauperis therefore will be granted.
The court now screens Robinson's complaint (ECF No. 2-1)
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a
court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify
cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous,
malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints
and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a
claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,
135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more
than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action is
insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the
complaint's deficiencies could not be cured through
amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend
the complaint with notice regarding the complaint's
deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Screening the complaint
complaint against Universal Health Services, Inc. alleges
“wrongful termination after reporting [her] director to
human resources” and demands that she “regain
employment status and back pay from termination.”
(Compl. (ECF No. 2-1) at 1.) Robinson attaches to her a
complaint a Notice of Right to Sue from the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Id. at
liberally construing the complaint, the court finds Robinson
does not state a claim against United Health Services.
Although Robinson generally states that she was terminated
for reporting her director to human resources, she does not
include any other factual allegations, such as the name of
the director, the reason for the reporting, the date of her
termination from the company, or other factual allegations
for the court to understand which legal claims she seeks to
assert against United Health Services. Without additional
factual allegations regarding the underlying dispute, the
court cannot evaluate whether Robinson's complaint states
a claim against United Health Services. The court therefore
will dismiss Robinson's complaint without prejudice for
her to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the document
must be titled "Amended Complaint." The amended
complaint must contain a short and plain statement describing
the underlying case and each defendant's involvement in
the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading
standard, Robinson still must give each defendant fair notice
of Robinson's claims against it and of Robinson's
entitlement to relief.
Robinson is advised that if he files an amended complaint,
the original complaint (ECF No. 1-1) no longer serves any
function in this case. As such, the amended complaint must be
complete in and of itself without reference to prior
pleadings or other documents. The court cannot refer to a
prior pleading or other documents to make Robinson's
amended complaint complete.
THEREFORE ORDERED that Robinson's application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff
is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without
prepaying fees or costs or giving security for them.
FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must detach and
separately file ...