Teresa L. Harris v. PowerSchool Group, LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERESA L. HARRIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-2872-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, 15 Defendant.

17 Teresa L. Harris brings this action against PowerSchool Group LLC and alleges that it violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act. ECF No. 1 at 4. Her complaint is inadequate, however, because it does not contain a short and plain statement of her claims. I will dismiss the complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies identified below.

22 Screening and Pleading Requirements 23 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is 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. Id. 28 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “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). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 4 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

10 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 11 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

14 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

17 Analysis 18 Plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against her by failing to hire her, terminating her employment, failing to promote her, imposing unequal terms and conditions of employment, and retaliating against her. ECF No. 1 at 5. She claims that defendant discriminated against her on the basis of race, color, gender/sex, religion, and age. Id. Plaintiff has failed, however, to explicitly plead any allegations in connection with these claims. Instead, she refers the reader to an Equal Opportunity Commission questionnaire. ECF No. 1 at 9-12. A brief timeline of incidents is also included, but this appears to have been prepared in conjunction with her questionnaire, and I cannot tell whether it comprises the entirety of her claims against defendant.

26 Id. at 13. Additionally, this timeline does not match each category of discrimination that plaintiff alleges, implying that there are additional claims or, at least, additional context that is lacking. A viable complaint should make all allegations explicit and inform the defendant of each claim | made against it. Referring the reader to administrative documents and assuming that they will | infer the claims therefrom is insufficient.

3 The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Any amended complaint will entirely | supersede the initial one and must be complete in itself. It should be titled “First Amended | Complaint” and be filed within thirty days of this order’s entry.

6 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

8 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended | complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

10 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may } result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

13 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

14 5. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ January 6, 2026 q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE