Hughes v. San Francisco Unified School District

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

7

8 AULIYA HUGHES, Case No. 25-cv-06299-PHK

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT

10 v. TO THE MANDATORY SCREENING

REQUIREMENTS OF 28 U.S.C.

11 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL § 1915(e)(2)(B)

DISTRICT, et al.,

12 Re: Dkt. 1

Defendants.

13

14

15 INTRODUCTION

16 Pro se Plaintiff Auliya Hughes brings this action against the San Francisco Unified School

17 District (“SFUSD”), Zachary Williams (identified in the Complaint as “Department of Public Health

18 Representative”), and Kathy Ballou (identified in the Complaint as “Nursing Director”), asserting

19 violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

20 et seq.. [Dkt. 1]. The Court previously granted Plaintiff Hughes’s application to proceed in forma

21 pauperis, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). [Dkt. 2]. The Court now undertakes a

22 determination of whether Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the mandatory

23 screening requirements of § 1915(e)(2)(B). After carefully reviewing the Complaint, and for the

24 reasons discussed herein, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff Hughes's Complaint WITHOUT

25 PREJUDICE pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).

26 BACKGROUND

27 On July 28, 2025, Plaintiff Auliya Hughes filed a pro se Complaint in this action. [Dkt. 1].

1 dollars in damages, as well as various other requested forms of relief including a request that the

2 Defendants pay for Plaintiff’s university loans, re-housing assistance, assistance with car

3 repossession, and issuance of certain declarations and injunctions. Id. at 8-9; see also Dkt. 1-1. The

4 Complaint asserts federal question jurisdiction under Title VII. [Dkt. 1 at 1]. Plaintiff Hughes

5 alleges that her position as a temporary senior typist for SFUSD ended on December 23, 2024, and

6 that SFUSD told her that she “was welcome to apply for other vacant positions within SFUSD or

7 elsewhere in the city.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that, after her position was terminated, she applied

8 for multiple other positions within SFUSD, none of which resulted in her being rehired. Id. at 4-8.

9 The Complaint alleges that, over some unspecific period of time, Plaintiff was a clerk, a teacher,

10 and then a clerk again within the SFUSD, and that Plaintiff ultimately lost her teaching credential.

11 Id. at 5. The Complaint alleges that Defendants unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff due to

12 her race, national origin, and religion. Id. at 2, 5.

13 LEGAL STANDARD

14 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory review

15 by the Court and sua sponte dismissal if the Court determines the complaint is “frivolous or

16 malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against

17 a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); see Calhoun v.

18 Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not

19 limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection

20 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint that fails to state

21 a claim.”) (emphasis added); see also Chavez v. Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2016)

22 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal—even if dismissal comes before the defendants

23 are served”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs

24 are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from

25 filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992)

26 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)).

27 If the Court dismisses a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B), the plaintiff may still file the

1 dismissal is an exercise of the Court’s discretion under the IFP statute. Biesenbach v. Does 1-3, No.

2 21-cv-08091-DMR, 2022 WL 204358, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022) (citing Denton, 504 U.S. at

3 32).

4 Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se. Accordingly, in undertaking the mandatory

5 screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court construes the allegations liberally and affords Plaintiff

6 the “benefit of any doubt.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation

7 omitted).

8 DISCUSSION

9 I. Whether the Complaint is Frivolous or Malicious

10 As an initial matter, the Court finds Plaintiff Hughes’s Complaint is not frivolous or

11 malicious. A “case is frivolous if it is 'of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact.'”

12 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). “A case is malicious if

13 it was filed with the 'intention or desire to harm another.'” Id. (citations omitted).

14 First, the Court finds that the Complaint has a sufficient basis in law and fact such that it

15 should not be dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff Hughes alleges that Defendants unlawfully

16 discriminated against her based on her race, national origin, and religion, in violation of Title VII.

17 Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse or fail to hire, to discharge, or to otherwise

18 discriminate against someone because of their statutorily protected class. Bostock v. Clayton Cnty.,

19 590 U.S. 644, 644 (2020). Class protection under Title VII applies to individuals discriminated

20 against in the workplace because of, among other things, their race, religion, and national origin.

21 In the Complaint, Plaintiff Hughes alleges that she attempted to start a grievance process

22 with the United Educators Union after her temporary senior typist position with SFUSD was

23 terminated on December 23, 2024. [Dkt. 1 at 4]. The Complaint alleges that representatives of

24 SFUSD offered her a temporary position despite knowing that Plaintiff was qualified for a

25 permanent position as a senior clerk, and then terminated her temporary position. Id. The Complaint

26 also asserts that SFUSD rejected Plaintiff’s subsequent applications for positions in the same field.

27 Id. The Complaint alleges that SFUSD representatives explained that her educational degree did

1 she has a bachelor’s degree in education, and once held a position as a teacher for the African

2 American Leadership Initiative Program. Id. Liberally construing the averments of the Complaint,

3 Plaintiff alleges that SFUSD unfairly discriminated against her in their hiring processes, based on

4 her race, national origin, and religion because, although she applied for positions she was qualified

5 to perform, she was rejected under circumstances that were discriminatory. Id. at 5. Accordingly,

6 taking the pleading as true, the Court finds that the Complaint is not frivolous as presented.

7 Second, the Court finds no information to suggest that Plaintiff Hughes filed her Complaint

8 with an intention or desire to harm another. Rather, Plaintiff Hughes's Complaint avers a specific

9 cause of action supported by information that, in her apparent view, provides legitimate grounds for

10 relief. Accordingly, because the Complaint’s express averments do not indicate any intent or desire

11 to harm another, and the context of the lawsuit carries no indicia that the case is malicious, dismissal

12 is not warranted on that basis.

13 As such, the Court does not find Plaintiff Hughes’s Complaint frivolous or malicious,

14 pursuant to the first requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

15 II. Whether the Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Relief

16 The next issue is whether the Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted.

17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is “a

18 context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and

19 common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2000). In reviewing a complaint for these

20 purposes, “[t]he standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which

21 relief may be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison, 668 F.3d at 1112 (citing Lopez v. Smith,

23 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)).

24 “The Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires a complaint to ‘contain sufficient factual matter,

25 accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680

26 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Detailed factual allegations are not

27 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

1 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A pleading must “contain either direct or inferential allegations

2 respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.”

3 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562 (citation omitted). In other words, the allegations must “give the

4 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 555.

5 As summarized above, the Complaint asserts claims under Title VII, under which it is

6 unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on their race, national origin,

7 or religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To assert a Title VII claim in federal district court, a plaintiff

8 must have timely exhausted their administrative remedies. Greenlaw v. Garrett, 59 F.3d 994, 997

9 (9th Cir. 1995). Specifically, Title VII provides that:

10 [A] charge must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged unlawful

employment practice occurred, except that when the person aggrieved has initially

11 instituted proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek

relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto

12 upon receiving notice thereof, such EEOC charge shall be filed by or on behalf of

the person aggrieved within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment

13 practice occurred, or within 30 days after receiving notice that the state or local

agency has terminated the proceedings under the state or local law, whichever is

14 earlier.

15

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.

16

Here, even viewing the pleading liberally, the Complaint is devoid of any allegations

17

suggesting that Plaintiff Hughes properly and timely exhausted her administrative remedies with

18

respect to her Title VII claims prior to filing this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Complaint is subject to

19

dismissal on that basis. See Hayes v. NASSCO, No. 3:17-cv-00004-BEN-WVG, 2017 WL 658714,

20

at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017) (dismissing IFP complaint, pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure

21

to allege administrative exhaustion of Title VII claims).

22

In addition to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Complaint does not

23

sufficiently allege a claim of discrimination. Title VII discrimination claims can be established by

24

direct or circumstantial evidence. Opara v. Yellen, 57 F.4th 709, 722 (9th Cir. 2023). A plaintiff

25

may elect to prove their case under the McDonnel-Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under this

26

framework, a plaintiff has the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination. Lui v.

27

DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 776 (9th Cir. 2025). If a plaintiff does so, the burden then shifts to the

1 employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.

2 Id. Once such a showing has been made, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the

3 employer’s proffered reason is a pretext for the alleged discrimination. Id.

4 A plaintiff may make a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she “applied for

5 an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give

6 rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303,

7 305 (2025). A plaintiff’s successful showing of a prima facie case “raises an inference of

8 discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than

9 not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.” Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S.

10 567, 577 (1978).

11 Here, the Complaint alleges that, after Plaintiff Hughes’s senior clerk position was

12 terminated, SFUSD discriminated against her by denying her applications for other positions. [Dkt.

13 1 at 3-8]. The Complaint does not allege that the termination of Plaintiff’s temporary position was

14 discriminatory. Instead, Plaintiff Hughes’s claims rest on SFUSD’s failure to hire her for other

15 positions she applied for. The Complaint alleges that Hughes “requested grievances by filed against

16 the cases pending in discrimination and harassment, for denying me a permanent position.” Id. at

17 6. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Hughes “signed a call back for the school year 2023/Fall [as

18 a teacher at Bessie Carmichael and Paul Rever [sic] Middle School] and it was rescinded by Human

19 Resource with no reasons.” Id. The Complaint refers to an “aggressive conversation” Plaintiff

20 Hughes had with a bilingual staff member and a follow-up “conversation” Plaintiff had with the

21 school principal, who is alleged to have “dismissed the aggressive conversation.” Id. at 7. The

22 Complaint alleges that SFUSD “denied” Plaintiff Hughes’s degree and that she “was told to take

23 the CBEST Math” (liberally construing the pleading, this appears to be a reference to the California

24 Basic Educational Skills Test (“CBEST”) for Mathematics, a credentialing test for educators). Id.

25 at 4. The Complaint avers that Plaintiff Hughes was somehow not allowed to teach in the “Pathways

26 Program a program designed to help with opportunity.” Id. at 5. As relief, Plaintiff Hughes requests

27 that SFUSD be made to “stop unfavorable hiring practices, stop discrimination, and allow the

1 Taken as a whole and liberally construed, the Complaint’s allegations fail to indicate

2 discrimination or potential discrimination against Plaintiff Hughes because of her race, national

3 origin, or religion. Id. at 5-7. First, there are no allegations which even inferentially implicate

4 Plaintiff’s religion or national origin. Second, the Complaint never explicitly states that Plaintiff is

5 a member of a protected class but construing the Complaint as liberally as allowed, there is at least

6 an inference that Plaintiff is or may be African-American. However, as described above, none of

7 the Complaint’s allegations link any decision not to hire Plaintiff based on her membership in a

8 protected class. At most, the allegations indicate that Plaintiff had negative interactions with

9 bilingual staff (and a negative interaction with a school Principal stemming from that “aggressive

10 conversation) and had credentials which qualified her for a permanent position which she never

11 received. Taken as true and even liberally construed, these allegations do not demonstrate that it

12 was “more likely than not,” that SFUSD’s hiring procedures were based on Plaintiff Hughes’s status

13 as a member of a protected class. Furnco, 438 U.S. at 577.

14 The Complaint includes allegations regarding Plaintiff Hughes’s previous employment with

15 San Francisco General Hospital and that the Public Health Department ignored “racist and

16 incriminating” remarks made by staff. [Dkt. 1 at 8]. However, Plaintiff Hughes is not suing San

17 Francisco General Hospital or the San Francisco Public Health Department. While the Complaint

18 includes two individual Defendants who are alleged to be associated with either the San Francisco

19 Department of Public Health or the San Francisco General Hospital, there are no claims against the

20 hospital itself or that agency. As discussed below, the claims against the individual Defendants are

21 legally defective as well. Further, the Complaint alleges that there was previously

22 “a connected case to this one” and that there were “[s]tatements made by employees of San

23 Francisco City and County” which “were never investigated causing the connection to this case.”

24 Id. The Complaint refers to “threats made by staff [of the Department of Public Health] that led

25 [Plaintiff Hughes] to understand that [she] will no longer be working for the hospital or the City and

26 County of San Francisco.” Id. However, these vague and conclusory allegations as to “statements”

27 or “threats” do not demonstrate any causal link between whatever may have happened during

1 conclusory statement that these cases are somehow “connected,” there are no facts alleged which

2 link Plaintiff’s experiences at San Francisco General Hospital to her failure to be hired by SFUSD.

3 Racist and incriminating remarks made by San Francisco General Hospital staff members are not

4 plausibly linked by any averments in the Complaint to the alleged discrimination in SFUSD’s hiring

5 process.

6 In sum, Plaintiff Hughes’s Complaint does not meet the plausibility standard under

7 Twombly, because the allegations do not give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination due to

8 Planitiff’s membership in a protected class, as required to state a claim for relief under Title VII.

9 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Hughes has failed to plausibly allege a claim for relief.

10 For that reason (in addition to the failure to adequately plead exhaustion), Plaintiff Hughes’s

11 Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

12 III. Whether the Complaint Seeks Monetary Relief Against an Immune Defendant

13 In performing the mandatory screening of a pro se complaint under the IFP statute, the final

14 issue for consideration is whether a complaint seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from

15 suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

16 Defendant SFUSD, a California school district, is deemed to be an arm of the State of

17 California. “In the case of Title VII, Congress abrogated the States' immunity, such that actions

18 may be properly brought against a State or one of its agencies.” Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist.,

19 982 F. Supp. 1396, 1405 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976))

20 (remaining citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court finds that SFUSD is not immune from suit in

21 this action.

22 Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that non-employer individuals cannot be held liable for

23 damages under Title VII, even if those individuals are supervisory employees. Miller v. Maxwell's

24 Int'l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir. 1993). “Because Congress assessed civil liability only

25 against an employer under Title VII . . . individual defendants cannot be held liable for back pay.”

26 Id.; see also Padway v. Palches, 665 F.2d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 1982); Seib v. Elko Motor Inn, 648 F.

27 Supp. 272, 274 (D. Nev. 1986); Pree v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 607 F. Supp. 945, 950 (D.

1 limited liability under Title VII to employers with 15 or more employees because it ‘did not want

2 to burden small entities with the costs associated with litigating discrimination claims.’ It was

3 therefore ‘inconceivable’ that Congress intended to allow individual employees to be sued under

4 Title VII.” Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, other

5 “courts have joined . . . in protecting supervisory employees from liability in their individual

6 capacities.” Miller, 991 F.2d at 583, 587. “There is no reason to stretch the liability of individual

7 employees beyond the respondeat superior principle intended by Congress.” Id. at 588.

8 Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant Zachary Williams is a Department of Public

9 Health Representative and that Defendant Kathy Ballou is a Nursing Director in the “Department

10 of Psychiatry.” [Dkt. 1 at 2]. As discussed above, the Complaint appears to attempt to assert claims

11 against these individuals based on Plaintiff’s previous employment and firing from San Francisco

12 General Hospital. [Dkt. 1 at 8]. And as discussed above, neither the San Francisco Department of

13 Public Health nor the San Francisco General Hospital are named Defendants in this case. To the

14 extent Plaintiff has attempted to assert claims for damages against Zachary Williams and Kathy

15 Ballou, those claims are legally improper under Title VII. As noted, the other miscellaneous forms

16 of relief Plaintiff seeks (such as declaratory and injunctive relief) are all directed to SFUSD and not

17 these individual Defendants. Accordingly, there is no proper legal basis to include either Defendant

18 Williams or Defendant Ballou as named Defendants in this case, because under Title VII they are

19 not properly named defendants.

20 Therefore, under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), the Complaint improperly seeks damages from

21 Defendants Ballou and Williams because they are immune from suit for such damages under Title

22 VII. Accordingly, because Plaintiff Hughes seeks monetary damages from these individual

23 Defendants, those claims are additionally subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

24 CONCLUSION

25 For the reasons discussed herein, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

26 1. Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to

27 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to adequately plead exhaustion of

1 relief, and pursuant o 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), for seeking monetary relief from

2 individuals immune from such relief.

3 2. Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE to file an amended complaint that addresses and cures

4 the deficiencies and issues herein by no later than NOVEMBER 14, 2025.

5 3. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by the ordered deadline or if she cannot

6 cure the identified deficiencies, that may result in negative consequences for this case,

7 including but not limited to a recommendation by this Court that this action be dismissed

8 with prejudice either in whole or in part. Plaintiff is advised in particular regarding the

9 legal prohibition under Title VII regarding any claim for damages against individual

10 defendants, as discussed above.

11 4. Plaintiff is ADVISED that there are several resources for pro se litigants. The Court

12 makes available a guide for pro se litigants called Representing Yourself in Federal

13 Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which provides instructions on how to proceed

14 at every stage of a case. This guide is available electronically online at

15 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/Pro_Se_Handbook_2020ed

16 links_12-2021_MBB.pdf or in hard copy free of charge from the Clerk of Court's Office.

17 The Court additionally has a webpage with resources for pro se litigants:

18 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/. The Court has a webpage of Tips for

19 Pro Se Filers, as well: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/tips-for-pro-se-

20 filers/. In addition, Plaintiff has the option to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center

21 by making an appointment by telephone at (415)-782-8982 or by email at

22 fedpro@sfbar.org. The Legal Help Center is a free service provided by the Justice &

23 Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco (“JDC”), and is not part of the

24 United States District Court. The Legal Help Center is staffed by attorneys employed

25 by the JDC to provide information and limited-scope legal assistance to pro se litigants

26 in civil cases. See https://cand.uscourts.gov/about/court-programs/legal-helpdesks/.

27 5. The Court further ADVISES that any amended complaint shall include the caption and

] AMENDED COMPLAINT” shall be written on the caption page. The Court

2 recommends that Plaintiff use this Court's form complaint (available on the Court

3 website) for drafting any amended complaint.

4 6. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, Plaintiff

5 SHALL include in any amended complaint all claims she wishes to present, all

6 defendants she wishes to sue, and all relief sought. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

7 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any newly-filed amended complaint SHALL NOT

8 incorporate material from the prior Complaint [Dkt. 1] by reference.

9 7. Plaintiff SHALL comply with all of this Court's Orders (including all General Orders

10 and Standing Orders, available on the Court's website) and all deadlines required by the

11 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, in a timely fashion.

12 When needed, Plaintiff may file a motion (prior to a deadline) requesting an extension

13 of time to meet a court-ordered deadline. In order to be considered timely, any such

14 motion SHALL show good cause why there exists a need for a reasonable amount of

3 15 additional time to complete the necessary tasks.

a 16 8. Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline herein, failure to keep the Court

2 17 properly informed of Plaintiff's contact information, or failure to prosecute this action

Z 18 timely may result in negative consequences for Plaintiff's case, including

19 recommendation for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil

20 Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and/or failure to prosecute.

21 9. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Hughes at her address of

22 record.

23

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: October 9, 2025

26 :

27 United States Magistrate Judge

28