Howell v. STRM LLC - Garden of Eden

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NATALIA HOWELL, Case No. 20-cv-00123-JSC 8 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER v. 10 GARDEN OF EDEN, et al., Defendants.

13 Natalia Howell brings this employment discrimination action against her former employer Garden of Eden, and two individuals: Soufyan Abouahmed and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi. (Dkt.

15 No. 1.) Having granted Ms. Howell’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (see Dkt. No. 4), the Court now screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

17 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 18 Plaintiff alleges that she was injured while moving boxes at her workplace, Garden of Eden, 21227 Foothill Blvd. Hayward, California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Although she was in excruciating pain, her supervisor, Andrew Do, refused to let her leave work to seek medical attention. (Id. at 4.) When she went to obtain medical assistance the next day, they noted that her back was inflamed and that she should have come in right away. (Id.) She was given a cane and referred to physical therapy. (Id.) She was later told that her employer denied her claim for workers compensation, unemployment, and disability. (Id.) 25 Ms. Howell pleads two claims for relief: (1) a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and (2) a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Both claims list Garden of Eden and Andrew Do as the Defendants. With respect to her Title VII claim, Plaintiff alleges that African-American, androgynous lesbians were given the opportunities.” (Id. at p. 5.) For her ADA claim, Plaintiff contends that she was terminated while out on disability.

3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 The Court has a continuing duty to dismiss any case in which a party is proceeding in forma pauperis upon a determination that the case is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The standard of review under 28 U.S.C. § 8 1915(e)(2) mirrors that of Rule 12(b)(6). Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000).

9 Thus, the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facial plausibility standard is not a “probability requirement” but mandates “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain more than “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. “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.When a plaintiff files a complaint without being represented by a lawyer, the court must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

21 DISCUSSION 22 Although Plaintiff lists Garden of Eden, Soufyan Abouahmed, and Shareef Radwan El- Sissi as defendants on page 2 of her Complaint, she does not include any allegations or other references to Soufyan Abouahmed, and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi in her Complaint. Rather, her two claims list Garden of Eden and Andrew Do as defendants. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5-6.) The complaint thus fails to state a claim for either a violation of Title VII or the ADA as to Soufyan Abouahmed, and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi.

1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, Ms. Howell’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief against either Soufyan Abouahmed, or Shareef Radwan El-Sissi. Within 30 days, Ms. Howell shall file an amended complaint with additional allegations as to these defendants or omitting these defendants from her claims. In addition, if she wishes to name Andrew Do as a defendant, she should clarify this in her amended complaint. Because Ms. Howell is proceeding without an attorney, the Court encourages her to seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal Help Center, in San Francisco at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, CA 94102, or in Oakland at: 1301 Clay Street 4th Floor, Room 470S Oakland, CA 94612. Ms. || Howell can make an appointment by calling (415) 792-8982.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: March 9, 2020 I Lin St 15 ne JAPQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY = 16 United States Magistrate Judge 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NATALIA HOWELL, 7 Case No. 20-cv-00123-JSC Plaintiff, 9 Vv. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 GARDEN OF EDEN, et al., Defendants. aq 12 . . . .

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. = District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 9, 2020, ISERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(es) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Z 18 19 Natalia Howell 1720 Crater Peak Way 20 Antioch, CA 94531 Dated: March 9, 2020 24 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 27 By: 28 Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY