United States District Court, E.D. California
CASSANDRA B. CHARLES, Plaintiff,
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants.
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 filed a request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and has
submitted the affidavit required by that statute.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to
proceed IFP will therefore be granted.
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 U.S. Office of Personnel Management
and multiple other federal agencies. ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff's 331-page complaint is a compilation of
multiple complaint forms and subpoena forms. Id.
Each title page indicates that this suit is brought under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment
discrimination, and the box “failure to employ
me” is checked. See, e.g.,
Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that between January and
August of 2019, she applied for 19 jobs on USAJOBS.COM,
submitting her DD214, college transcripts, writing sample,
SF50, SF15, and statement of disability from the social
security office. Id. at 54. Plaintiff alleges that
in response to all 19 applications she received a notice from
human resources that she was not eligible for the position.
Id. The education requirement for each job was a
Bachelor of Science and/or a Master's degree, and
plaintiff holds both a Bachelor of Science and a Master of
Arts degree. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the human
resources departments in each agency committed age
discrimination by failing to pass her applications along to
the hiring manager for consideration. Id. Plaintiff
was born in 1957. Id. at 72.
court must reject plaintiff's complaint because it does
not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. The complaint does not
contain a “short and plain” statement setting
forth the basis for plaintiff's entitlement to relief,
even though this is required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)-(3).
First, plaintiff's 331-page complaint appears to be a
combination of multiple different complaints, with pages
mixed together, making it difficult to decipher. The
disjointed nature of the complaint does not meet the
requirements of Rule 8 because it is difficult to comprehend
and because it is not specific with respect to which
allegations apply to which defendants.
plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Title VII by
practicing age discrimination in failing to hire her, but she
does not allege a single fact other than her age to
demonstrate a discriminatory motive. A prima facie case of
discriminatory failure to hire requires a showing that: (1)
plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified
for the position; (3) she was rejected despite her
qualification; and (4) the position remained open.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802
(1973). Plaintiff does not make the required allegations.
Although she alleges that she met the educational
requirements for each job, it is not clear the she met all
other requirements for each job at issue. Further, ...