Hussain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAGEB Y. HUSSAIN, Case No. 26-cv-04033-AGT

Plaintiff,

SCREENING ORDER

v.

ASURINT, et al.,

Defendants.

Having granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 6), the un-

dersigned now screens Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and concludes

that the complaint is deficient, for the reasons identified below.

* * *

Plaintiff’s only federal claim is for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating based on

“race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” § 2000e–2(a), and from retaliating against

employees and job applicants who oppose or file complaints alleging employment discrim-

ination, § 2000e–3(a). See Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 347 (2013).

Plaintiff hasn’t stated an actionable Title VII claim. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

violated Title VII because they “discriminated based on my last name, the amount of money

I have[,] and the fact that I was trying to cash out the house rather than pay [the] mortgage

. . . .” Dkt. 1 at 5. Discrimination based on a person’s last name could constitute national-

origin discrimination, which is actionable under Title VII, but Plaintiff’s allegations of na-

tional-origin discrimination are “mere conclusory statements, [which] do not suffice” to state

a claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Meanwhile, discrimination

based on a person’s assets or the fact that he or she is trying to sell a home doesn’t violate

Title VII; discrimination of that kind isn’t discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex,

or national origin,” § 2000e–2(a), and doesn’t constitute retaliation based on complaints

about employment discrimination, § 2000e–3(a).

Plaintiff’s complaint also includes several state-law claims. See Dkt. 1 at 4 (alleging

violations of San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance, S.F., Cal., Police Code art. 49; and

California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.); id. at 5 (al-

leging violations of the Ralph Brown Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 54950 et seq.; and the Unruh

Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51). The Court won’t exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over these claims because Plaintiff hasn’t stated an actionable federal claim. Lima v. United

States Dep’t of Educ., 947 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2020).

Nor can the Court exercise original jurisdiction over the state-law claims based on

diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Plaintiff hasn’t established that the parties

are completely diverse, as necessary for diversity jurisdiction. Morris v. Princess Cruises,

Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). As “[t]he party seeking to invoke the district

court’s diversity jurisdiction,” Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading complete diversity.

NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 613 (9th Cir. 2016).

ok

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, on or before September 1, 2026. If Plaintiff

doesn’t do so, or if Plaintiff files an amended complaint that fails to state a claim for relief,

the undersigned will recommend that a district judge dismiss the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2026

Alex G. Tse

United States Magistrate Judge