Dontague Bush v. CPLC Nevada

Case No. 2:26-cv-00117-CDS-NJK; Docket No. 1 · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · January 23, 2026 · No. Case No. 2:26-cv-00117-CDS-NJK; Docket No. 1

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants Dontague Bush leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and dismisses the FMLA interference claim with leave to amend because the complaint does not allege that Bush gave his employer sufficient notice of the medical or family-related reasons for his absences. The court also notes that the complaint is unsigned and may present additional timeliness and exhaustion issues, and sets a deadline for amendment.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted because he demonstrated an inability to prepay fees and costs or provide security.
  2. The complaint failed to state a claim for FMLA interference because it did not allege that plaintiff provided his employer with notice of the medical or family circumstances underlying his absences.
  3. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because the court did not conclude that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
  2. Whether the complaint stated a prima facie claim for FMLA interference under the applicable pleading and screening standards.
  3. Whether dismissal should be with leave to amend.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.)(followed)
  • Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir.)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(followed)
  • Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)(followed)
  • Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir.)(followed)
  • Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir.)(followed)
  • Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1089 (D. Or.)(followed)
  • Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125, 1134-35 (9th Cir.)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…