Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Son Q. Pham v. State of California Department of Transportation

May 31, 2012

SON Q. PHAM
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (12-701) SON Q. PHAM V. CITY OF LONG BEACH (12-709)



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Arthur Nakazato, United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - ORDER

Present: Hon. Arthur Nakazato, United States Magistrate Judge

(In Chambers - No Appearances)

Stephen Ybarra None Deputy Clerk CourtSmart Ref. No. Proceedings: Order to Show Cause ("OSC")

Rulings: For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff Son Q. Pham is hereby ordered to show cause why the Magistrate Judge should not report and recommend to the Chief Judge that his in forma pauperis requests [1] ("IFP Requests") in the pending actions be denied, and why Pham should not be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing future IFP Requests or other papers without the pre-payment of the full filing fee or without the approval of a Judge of this Court. Pham is ordered to comply with this OSC by: (1) filing a written response to this OSC no later than noontime, June 5, 2012, and (2) appearing in person before the Court at 10:00 a.m. sharp, June 7, 2012, in Courtroom 6B of this Court located at 411 W. 4th St., Santa Ana, California, 92701. Pham is notified and warned that his failure to comply with any aspect of this OSC will result in his IFP Requests being denied and Pham will be declared a vexatious litigant. No further notice will be given.

Discussion:

1. SACV 12-701 UA

On May 3, 2012, plaintiff Son Q. Pham commenced this action by filing his IFP Request and lodging his proposed complaint against the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") purporting to allege claims based upon violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The claims in the proposed one-page complaint are wholly based upon the following allegations:

On or about March 7, 2011, I applied for the positions of District Deputy Director, and Design Office Chief. On or about May 2, 2011, I was told by the Executive office Caltrans district 12 that I was not hired for any positions.

No reason was given as to why I was not hired.

I believe I have been discriminated against due to my disability and in retaliation for filling [sic] EEOC charges in 2005, 2006 against Caltrans which are in violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended and Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The judgment demand to [sic] against State of California Department of Transportation - district 12 for Ten Million Dollars, the cost of this action, and the positions of District Deputy Director and Office Chief.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(1), (e)(2), a plaintiff's IFP application may be denied if the complaint fails to state a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.