Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona grants Raquel Grey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses her Title VII retaliation complaint for failure to allege that she engaged in protected activity, while granting 30 days to amend. The order warns that failure to amend may result in dismissal with prejudice.
Holdings
- Grey qualified to proceed in forma pauperis because she could not pay court costs while still affording the necessities of life.
- The complaint failed to state a Title VII retaliation claim because Grey did not allege that she engaged in protected activity by opposing conduct she reasonably believed violated Title VII.
- Grey was entitled to amend because the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile.
Questions Presented
- Whether Grey qualified to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the complaint stated a Title VII retaliation claim under the mandatory screening standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- Whether Grey should be granted leave to amend the deficient complaint.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (17)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2005)(followed)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Hairston v. Juarez, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2023)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009)(followed)
- Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 763-64 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…