Jevarien Zymell Dunlap v. Ross Stores

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Plaintiff Jevarien Zymell Dunlap to show cause why the action against Ross Stores should not be dismissed. The court concluded that the complaint did not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or 18 U.S.C. § 242, lacked sufficient allegations supporting racial profiling or intentional infliction of emotional distress, and did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted four weeks to file an amended complaint or a response and continued the case management conference.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim because it did not allege that Ross Stores or its employees were government actors or acted under color of state law.
2. The complaint failed to state a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because § 242 is a criminal statute and does not provide a private right of action.
3. The complaint did not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction over a potential intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim and did not allege facts sufficient to support the claim.
4. The complaint did not plausibly allege racial profiling or identify another federal law supporting a claim based on the alleged facts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ross Stores or its employees.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 242 provides a private civil cause of action.
3. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support a potential intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim and establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged racial profiling or another federal claim.

Disposition

other