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.

Charles J. Quintana v. Quest Diagnostics Inc

June 19, 2012

CHARLES J. QUINTANA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC.,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Charles J. Quintana ("Plaintiff"), appearing pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant action on May 18, 2012. He names Quest Diagnostics Inc. as Defendant.

DISCUSSION

A. Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court determines that the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the 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.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Plaintiff's Allegations

On April 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner's office in Fresno, California. The complaint "was lost and . . . resurface[d] in Sacramento" in September.

On May 18, 2011, Defendant Quest Diagnostics, Inc. fired Plaintiff for "no longer meeting the company's expectations."

On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner regarding unsafe and unlawful working conditions. To date, no action has been taken on his behalf.

Plaintiff asks the Court to "decide the issue."

C. Analysis

Deficiencies of the Complaint

1. Federal Rule of Civil ...


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.