The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 JEREMIAH RUTH, No. 2:26-cv-01130-DAD-SCR
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. ORDER
13
ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY OF
14 SAN FRANCISCO,
15 Defendant.
16
17
18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant
19 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to
20 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted a declaration listing his income and
21 expenses and averring an inability to pay the costs of this proceeding. The motion to proceed IFP
22 (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. However, for the reasons provided below, the Court finds
23 Plaintiff’s complaint is legally deficient and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended
24 complaint.
25 I. SCREENING
26 A. Legal Standard
27 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
28 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In
2 reviewing the complaint, the Court is guided by the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
3 Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available online at www.uscourts.gov/rules-
4 policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.
5 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the complaint must contain (1) a “short and
6 plain statement” of the basis for federal jurisdiction (that is, the reason the case is filed in this
7 court, rather than in a state court), (2) a short and plain statement showing that plaintiff is entitled
8 to relief (that is, who harmed the plaintiff, and in what way), and (3) a demand for the relief
9 sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth simply, concisely and directly.
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Forms are available to help pro se plaintiffs organize their complaint in
11 the proper way. They are available at the Clerk’s Office, 501 I Street, 4th Floor (Rm. 4-200),
12 Sacramento, CA 95814, or online at www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms.
13 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the
15 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they
16 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the
17 plaintiff, and (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von
18 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.
19 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).
20 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
21 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
22 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
23 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
24 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. However, the
25 court need not accept as true legal conclusions, even if cast as factual allegations. See Moss v.
26 U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). A formulaic recitation of the elements of
27 a cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
28 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
1 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
2 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
3 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
5 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
6 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Akhtar v.
7 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012).
8 B. The Complaint
9 Plaintiff’s complaint lists one Defendant, the Academy of Art University of San
10 Francisco. Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction based on the Americans with Disabilities
11 Act (“ADA”). ECF No. 1 at 4. The statement of facts in its entirety is: “Refused to create a
12 personalized plan of accommodations to reason accommodate me told me I was too old Falsely
13 accused me of terrorist threats Forced to drop out & told they would [illegible] to resign up.”1 Id.
14 at 5. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages of at least $200,000.
15 C. Analysis
16 Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 in that it fails to put Defendant
17 adequately on notice of the claims against it. The brief factual allegations are conclusory. There
18 are no dates pled and there is no description of the facts at issue—there are only conclusory
19 statements about a refusal to accommodate and false accusations.
20 Plaintiff’s complaint also does not state a claim on which relief can be granted for the
21 same reasons that it does not comply with Rule 8. A formulaic recitation of the elements of a
22 cause of action does not suffice to state a claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
23 678. To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
24 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
25 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
26 ////
27
1 The statement is handwritten, somewhat difficult to decipher, and largely lacking in
28 punctuation.
1 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
2 678.
3 Plaintiff does not allege under what Title of the ADA he brings his claim. The ADA has
4 been described as containing a “broad mandate” designed to “remedy widespread discrimination
5 against disabled individuals.” PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 674-75 (2001). “To
6 effectuate its sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids discrimination against disabled individuals in
7 major areas of public life, among them employment (Title I of the Act), public services (Title II),
8 and public accommodations (Title III).” Id. at 675. Plaintiff has not alleged facts concerning his
9 relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff does not allege he was an employee. Plaintiff uses the
10 phrase “drop out,” so perhaps he was a student.
11 If Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim under Title II of the ADA, in order to show that a
12 public program or service violated Title II, “a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a ‘qualified individual
13 with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a
14 public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the
15 public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his
16 disability.” Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “Title II
17 of the ADA does not apply to private universities. Title II of the ADA applies to ‘public
18 entit[ies].’” Ma v. Densmore, 2021 WL 2682569 (W.D. Wash.) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12132). On
19 the other hand, if Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim under Title III of the ADA, plaintiff must
20 plead the following elements: “(1) the plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the Act; (2)
21 the plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of that disability; and (3) the defendant owns,
22 leases or leases to or operates a place of public accommodation.” Hernandez v. Cty. of
23 Monterrey, 70 F.Supp.3d 963, 972 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Courts regularly find private education
24 instituions to be places of public accommodation for purposes of Title III. See Regents of
25 Mercersburg Coll. v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 159, 165 (3rd Cir. 2006) (stating that a
26 private secondary and college preparatory boarding school was a “‘place of education,’ and,
27 accordingly, a ‘public accommodation’ under [ADA Title III]”); Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 974
28
1 F. Supp. 106, 133 & n.24 (D. Mass. 1997) (holding that a private university was a “public
2
accommodation” under Title III).
3
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged that he is a qualified person with a disability or alleged
4
facts that would make his status as a disabled person plausible.
5
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court “shall dismiss the case at any time” if it fails to state
6
a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
7
from such relief. However, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and a pro se litigant should be given
8
leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
9
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual
10
content to state a claim. However, given the vagueness and brevity of the factual allegations,
11
rather than recommending dismissal of the action, the undersigned will provide Plaintiff an
12
opportunity to amend the complaint to allege facts supporting a cognizable cause of action.
13
II. AMENDING THE COMPLAINT
14
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, it must contain a short and plain statement of
15
Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations of the complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered
16
paragraphs, with each paragraph number being one greater than the one before, each paragraph
17
having its own number, and no paragraph number being repeated anywhere in the complaint.
18
Each paragraph should be limited “to a single set of circumstances” where possible. Rule 10(b).
19
As noted above, forms are available to help plaintiffs organize their complaint in the proper way.
20
The amended complaint must not force the Court or the Defendants to guess at what is
21
being alleged against whom. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir. 1996)
22
(affirming dismissal of a complaint where the district court was “literally guessing as to what
23
facts support the legal claims being asserted against certain defendants”). Also, the amended
24
complaint must not refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint
25
complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior
26
pleading. Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes
27
the original complaint. See Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438,
28
1 | 456 n.4 (2009) (“[nJormally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint”) (citing 6
2 | C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476, pp. 556-57 (2d ed. 1990)).
3 || Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement
4 || of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
5 Plaintiff's amended complaint must address the issues set forth herein. Plaintiff must
6 || allege enough factual content in support of his claims to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
7 || its face. !
8 Ill. CONCLUSION
9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
10 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
11 2. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint
12 that addresses the defects set forth above. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this
13 order, the undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed.
14 3. Alternatively, if Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, Plaintiff may file a notice
15 of voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
16 Procedure.
17 SO ORDERED.
18 | DATED: April 21, 2026
20
21 SEAN C. RIORDAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28