Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Bryant v. National Security Industries

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 10, 2014

AMIA BRYANT, Plaintiff,


CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The action was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint. The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if 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).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy , 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke , 490 U.S. at 327.

A complaint must contain more than "naked assertions, " "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

As with the previous three complaints filed by plaintiff, the allegations in the third amended complaint are vague and conclusory. Although plaintiff cites several federal statutes in the third amended complaint, plaintiff fails to allege how any of the cited statutes were violated. Plaintiff also fails to allege any causal connection between the actions of defendant and any deprivation of federal rights. Plaintiff has inconsistently alleged in her various complaints that she was part of an on-the-job training program, that defendant refused to hire her, and that she was wrongfully terminated. The actions plaintiff has complained of, i.e. that there was a mix-up in plaintiff's work schedule, that she was spoken to harshly by a supervisor, that her supervisor had a "creeping" style of approach to plaintiff's work station, that a supervisor placed his cousin in the position of patrol supervisor to watch plaintiff, and that she was not properly trained for her job, are insufficient to support a claim of unlawful discrimination based on any prohibited ground.

Plaintiff has now filed four complaints. Plaintiff's third amended complaint again suffers from the deficiencies previously noted with regard to plaintiff's prior complaints. In each complaint, plaintiff has failed to allege in a nonconclusory fashion the proper elements of any cause of action. Despite repeated opportunities to cure the deficiencies in her complaints, plaintiff has failed to do so. Moreover, it appears that further amendment would be futile.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst , 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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