Mehboob Shah v. Desert Auto Group V LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court screened the pro se plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found that the claims for retaliation, racial discrimination, and state wage and hours claims were sufficiently pled to proceed. The court ordered the Clerk to issue a summons and the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendant.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Complaint allowed to proceed on claims of retaliation, racial discrimination, and state wage and hours claims“After screening this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled retaliation, racial discrimination, and state wage and hours claims to proceed.” | agree with court The order cites the correct statute for screening IFP complaints and relies on Ninth Circuit precedent establishing a low threshold for pro se litigants to survive screening. The court explicitly states that the claims meet this threshold. While the order does not detail the specific facts supporting each claim, the application of the 'low threshold' standard to a pro se complaint is legally sound. |
Claim for disability discrimination dismissed or not allowed to proceed“However, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled disability discrimination in the need only satisfy a “low threshold” to “proceed past the screening stage”” | agree with court The order explicitly states that the plaintiff has not sufficiently pled the disability discrimination claim. Although the specific reasoning for this failure is not detailed in the provided text, the court is within its discretion to dismiss claims that fail to meet the pleading standards under § 1915(e)(2). |
Ordering service of process by U.S. Marshal“ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon Defendant Desert Auto Group V LLC as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s provided” | agree with court The court correctly orders service by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), which requires the court to order service for IFP plaintiffs. The instructions regarding waiver of service and costs are consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the screening standard for IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit authority (Wilhelm v. Rotman) for the 'low threshold' applicable to pro se litigants. The court distinguishes between claims that survive screening and those that do not, and properly orders service by the U.S. Marshal under § 1915(d). The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a screening order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BILAL MEHBOOB SHAH, Case No.: 23cv1073-JO-BGS 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 v. ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 12 & ORDERING MARSHALL DESERT AUTO GROUP V LLC, SERVICE 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 Pro se Plaintiff Bilal Mehboob Shah alleges that his former employer, Defendant 19 Desert Auto Group V LLC (“Desert Auto”), discriminated against him and failed to 20 accommodate his disability. Dkt. 34, Fourth Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Given that 21 the Court has granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 4, the Court must 22 screen his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After screening this 23 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently 24 pled retaliation, racial discrimination, and state wage and hours claims to proceed.1 See 25 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishing that a pro se litigant 26 27 1 However, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled disability discrimination in the 28 1 need only satisfy a “low threshold” to “proceed past the screening stage”) (internal citation 2 and quotation marks omitted). 3 For the reasons explained above, the Court: 4 1. DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Fourth 5 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 34) upon Defendant and to forward it to 6 Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for the named Defendant. 7 In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of this Order, 8 his Complaint, and the summons (together, the “IFP Package”) so that he may 9 serve Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete 10 the USM Form 285 as completely and accurately as possible, include an 11 address where Defendant may be found and/or subject to service pursuant to 12 S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1c., and return it to the United States Marshal according to 13 the instructions the Clerk provides. 14 2. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons 15 upon Defendant Desert Auto Group V LLC as directed by Plaintiff on the 16 USM Form 285s provided, and to file executed waivers of personal service 17 upon Defendant Desert Auto Group V LLC with the Clerk of Court as soon 18 as possible after its return. Should Defendant fail to return the U.S. Marshal’s 19 request for waiver of personal service within 90 days, the U.S. Marshal shall 20 instead file the completed Form USM 285 Process Receipt and Return with 21 the Clerk of Court, include the date the summons, Complaint and request for 22 waiver was mailed to Defendant, and indicate why service upon the party 23 remains unexecuted. All costs of that service will be advanced by the United 24 States; however, if Defendant is located within the United States and fails, 25 without good cause, to sign and return the waiver requested by the Marshal 26 on Plaintiff’s behalf, the Court will impose upon Defendant any expenses later 27 incurred in making personal service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 4(c)(3). l 3. ORDERS Defendant, once he has been served, to reply to Plaintiff's 2 Complaint, and any subsequent pleading he may file in this matter in which 3 they are named as parties, within the time provided by the applicable 4 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). 5 |} IT ISSO ORDERED. 6 7 ||Dated: October 21, 2024 8 10 “Tinsook Ohta 1] United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28