1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 UGANDA KNAPPS, Case No. 20-cv-09333-AGT

8 Plaintiff. SCREENING ORDER v. 9 Re: ECF Nos. 1, 4 10 EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES (THE SANCTUARY), 11 Defendant.

12 13 Uganda Knapps, representing himself, brings this action against Episcopal Community 14 Services (“ECS”) for alleged employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights 15 Act of 1964. Having granted Knapps’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, the 16 Court now screens his complaint, pursuant to

(e)(2), and concludes that it is 17 deficient for the reasons stated below. The Clerk of the Court is accordingly instructed not to 18 issue summons or to serve Knapps’ complaint on ECS. If Knapps fails to file a satisfactory 19 amendment, the undersigned will recommend that a district judge dismiss his case. 20 I. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 21 Utilizing this District’s form complaint for employment discrimination, Knapps alleges 22 that on January 31, 2020 and February 2, 2020, while he was working swing shifts at ECS, a male 23 co-worker “touched [Knapps] on [the] butt” as he walked by. ECF No. 1 at 2. When Knapps later 24 told human resources about both incidents, he claims that he was accused of lying and “call[ed] a 25 homophobe,” which “cause[d him] to have a negative reaction by [] not wanting to work for ECS 26 anymore.”

Knapps checks the box in his form complaint indicating that ECS discriminated 27 against him based on his religion, and he also alleges that ECS “violated the Psychological 1 the reason for the Respondeat Superior!”

Knapps’ complaint does not establish what his 2 religion is or whether he still works at ECS. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal courts are required to screen and dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to 5 state a claim on which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2)(B)(ii). The standard of 6 review under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 7 Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the complaint must include a 8 “short and plain statement,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 9 true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 678 10 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). Because Knapps is pro se, 11 the Court construes his pleadings liberally and affords him the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. 12 Pliler,

(9th Cir. 2010). The Court is not, however, required to accept as true 13 allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. 14 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,

(9th Cir. 2001). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 Even affording Knapps the benefit of the doubt, his complaint does not allege sufficient 17 facts from which it can be plausibly inferred that ECS discriminated against him in violation of 18 Title VII. To state a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege 19 that (1) he is a member of a protected class,1 (2) he was performing his job in a satisfactory 20 manner, (3) he experienced an adverse employment action, and (4) that he was treated differently 21 than similarly situated persons outside his protected class. Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit 22 Union,

(9th Cir. 2006). Here, Knapps checked the box in his form complaint 23 indicating that he experienced religious discrimination, but he includes no factual allegations that 24 plausibly reflect discriminatory motive or otherwise suggest that ECS took any adverse action 25 against him because of his religion. As noted, the complaint does not identify Knapps’ religion, 26 nor does it allege any facts about his job performance or treatment different from that of other 27 ] ECS employees. In order to state a Title VII claim that is suitable to proceed, Knapps must allege 2 || non-conclusory facts supporting the above elements of a claim. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 Because Knapps has failed to allege a plausible claim for relief under Title VII, his 5 complaint fails § 1915 review. Knapps may file an amended complaint, by March 12, 2021, to 6 || correct the identified deficiencies. If he does not file an amended complaint by that date, or if his 7 || amended complaint is still deficient, the undersigned will recommend that a district judge dismiss 8 || his case. 9 Knapps is encouraged to visit the Northern District of California’s website, where he can 10 || obtain information and resources about appearing pro se. See U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., 11 Representing Yourself, https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. Knapps is also encouraged to 12 || seek free assistance from the Northern District’s Legal Help Center. He can make an appointment g 13 || by calling (415) 792-8982. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: February 5, 2021 16 ALEX. TSE 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28