Curtis Abdul Al’Shahid v. H & P Protective Services Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge grants the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and conducts the required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The document recommends dismissal of the plaintiff’s Title VII, potential ADEA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, finding no applicable discrimination basis and no state action by the private defendants. It also recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims for wrongful termination, defamation, and wage theft, dismissing them without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a Title VII retaliation claim because it did not allege opposition to an unlawful employment practice involving race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
2. To the extent plaintiff attempted to assert an ADEA retaliation claim, the complaint failed to state such a claim because it alleged no facts concerning plaintiff's age, age discrimination, or opposition to age discrimination.
3. The complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the employer and its employees were private actors and plaintiff alleged no facts establishing action under color of state law or a conspiracy with state officials.
4. The court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a Title VII retaliation claim when the alleged protected opposition concerned harassment about marijuana use rather than discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
2. Whether the complaint stated an ADEA retaliation claim when it contained no factual allegations concerning plaintiff's age or age discrimination.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the defendants were private actors and the complaint alleged no facts showing action under color of state law or a conspiracy with state officials.
4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after recommending dismissal of all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed