(PS) Whitsitt v. Select Staffing

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, No. 2:18-cv-1866 TLN DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND MATERIALS FOR SERVICE SELECT STAFFING; COSTCO AND REQUIRING SERVICE BY WHOLESALE MEATS, UNITED STATES MARSHAL 16 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff William Whitsitt is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). On July 13, 2018, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) On May 20, 2019, plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 19, 2019. (ECF No. 9.)

23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, the second amended complaint alleges that defendant Select Staffing and defendant Costco Wholesale Meats retaliated against plaintiff for complaining about working conditions and complaining about discrimination, and then terminated plaintiff’s employment in favor of a younger employee. In this regard, it appears that the second amended complaint states a claim for retaliation and claim for age-based discrimination. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(a); 42 U.S.C. §2000e–3 (2000); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1280 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The Age Discrimination in Employment Act . . . makes it unlawful for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual who is at least 40 years of age . . . because of such individual’s age.”); Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee because that employee ‘has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.’”).

10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff: one USM-285 form for each defendant, one summons, an endorsed copy of the second amended complaint, and an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge.

14 2. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 21 days from the date of this order, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal.

17 The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require, for each defendant, at least: 19 a. One completed summons; 20 b. One completed USM-285 form; 21 c. One copy of the endorsed filed second amended complaint, with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and 23 d. One copy of the instant order.

24 3. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on a defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

27 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal, 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030.

1 5. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order may result in a || recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3 | Dated: October 29, 2019 6 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | DLB:6 73 DB/orders/orders.pro se/whitsitt 1866.serv.ord