United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was
accordingly referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal.
302(c)(21). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit
required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP will therefore be
federal IFP statute requires 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).
Plaintiff must assist the court in determining whether or not
the complaint is frivolous, by drafting the complaint so that
it complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are available online at
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must
contain (1) a “short and plain statement” of the
basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case
is filed in this court, rather than in a state court), (2) a
short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled
to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what
way), and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth simply,
concisely and directly. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Forms are
available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint
in the proper way. They are available at the Clerk's
Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200), Sacramento, CA
95814, or online at
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this
standard, the court will (1) accept as true all of the
factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
(3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton Simon
Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.
2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
court applies the same rules of construction in determining
whether the complaint states a claim on which relief can be
granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(court must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff).
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true
conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or
unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v.
Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not
suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff
must allege enough facts “to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” 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, 556 U.S.
at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the
deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend,
unless the complaint's deficiencies could not be cured by
amendment. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448
(9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as
stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th
Cir.2000)) (en banc).
brings suit against the County of Calaveras. ECF No. 1 at 2.
As the basis for jurisdiction, plaintiff invokes the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12112-12117 by checking a box on the form
complaint. Id. at 3. Plaintiff checked boxes
indicating that the discriminatory conduct of which he
complains includes termination of employment, failure to
accommodate his disability, and retaliation. Id. at
4. He checked a box indicating the discrimination is ongoing,
but when asked to provide dates of incidences, he indicated
only several dates in 2016. Id. The entire
description of facts provided by plaintiff is as follows:
Suffered industrial head/brain injury which caused additional
cognitive/phycological disabilities. Wrongful termination
based on lack of accomidations [sic] and interactive process
with requests for proper medical treatment recommendations.
Placed on workers compensation with medical leave per three
independent California Qualified Medical Examinors [sic]
evaluations, discovery, and recommendations with treatment
plan prior to re-evaluations never received. Discrimination
based on respondent and their representation failed to honor
said treatment to engage in a proper interactive process.
Retaliation based on being terminated while on leave from
medical doctor. Discrimination, retaliation and harrassment
[sic] based on cognitive/phycological inabilities while being
denied treatment for the chance to receive reasonable
Id. at 5. Plaintiff was issued a Right to Sue letter
from the Equal Opportunity Commission on June 13, 2019.
Id. at 5, 7. As damages, plaintiff seeks payment of
his base salary from June 16, 2015 to the present, comp time,
vacation, and sick leave accrued prior to June 8, 2014, Early
Industrial CALPERS retirement granted to be calculated to
full retirement age of 65, and punitive damages. Id.
complaint does not contain a “short and plain”
statement setting forth the basis for plaintiff's
entitlement to relief, or the relief that is sought, even
though those things are required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3).
The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff is simply not
articulated by the complaint, which largely states legal
conclusions. Plaintiff does not explain the facts of what
happened to him, such as who discriminated against him, the
form the discrimination took, or the dates when the
discriminatory acts occurred. The court ...