Murray v. Golden Gate Bridge
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:25-cv-08067
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Keyairra A. Murray v. Golden Gate Bridge, Judge Westmore granted a fee waiver, found the complaint deficient, and allowed amendment.
Keyairra A. Murray may continue the case only by filing an amended complaint that addresses the identified deficiencies by December 19, 2025; the defendant remains in the case at this stage.
What happened
In Keyairra A. Murray v. Golden Gate Bridge, Keyairra A. Murray filed claims alleging race-based employment discrimination under federal and California law. She also applied to proceed without paying filing fees after her first application was denied without prejudice.
The court granted the amended fee application but found the complaint too vague to pass its required initial review. The complaint did not provide enough facts about the alleged discrimination, omitted the date of hire, and did not clearly connect specific facts to each claim.
Judge Kandis A. Westmore ordered Murray to file an amended complaint by December 19, 2025. The court did not dismiss the case at this stage, but stated that failure to amend or cure the defects could lead to a recommendation that some or all of the case be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Golden Gate Bridge · No. 4:25-cv-08067
- Kandis Westmore
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
Keyairra A. Murray filed this civil action and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had denied her initial application without prejudice, and she submitted an amended application. The court granted the amended application.
Murray alleged race-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The opinion states that she alleged unequal treatment, lack of support, and discriminatory conduct by supervisors and management, identifying Stephanie La’Rue, Michelle Purugganan, Susan Spencer, Patricia Slater, and Kathryn Mithcell.
Screening analysis
Because Murray was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal in specified circumstances, including when a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
The court found the complaint deficient. Murray did not provide many factual details and left the date-of-hire field blank. The court also found her description of the alleged discriminatory conduct vague and conclusory because it did not explain what happened or who was involved in each incident. In addition, the claims incorporated all earlier paragraphs, making it difficult for the court to determine which facts supported which claims.
Ruling
The court concluded that the complaint was insufficient under Section 1915(e)(2). It ordered Murray to file an amended complaint clearly stating the legal and factual basis for all claims by December 19, 2025.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Murray did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, or if the amended complaint did not cure all defects, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a report and recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in whole or in part, or that the entire case be dismissed. The order also identified a free help desk and a court-adopted manual for people proceeding without lawyers.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.