Howell v. STRM LLC - Garden of Eden
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-00123
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Howell v. Garden of Eden, Judge Corley ordered amendment because the complaint stated no Title VII or disability claim against two named defendants.
Natalia Howell must amend her complaint within 30 days if she wants to pursue claims against Soufyan Abouahmed or Shareef Radwan El-Sissi, or clarify whether she intends to name Andrew Do. The order does not state a disposition of the claims against Garden of Eden or Andrew Do.
What happened
In Howell v. Garden of Eden, Natalia Howell sued her former employer and individuals over an alleged workplace injury, discrimination, and termination while disabled. She alleged that she was hurt moving boxes, was not allowed to leave for medical care, and was later denied workers’ compensation, unemployment, and disability benefits.
Howell claimed violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court found that although she named Soufyan Abouahmed and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi as defendants, her complaint contained no allegations or references to them. The order therefore found that the complaint did not state either claim against those two individuals.
Judge Corley ordered Howell to file an amended complaint within 30 days, adding allegations about those defendants or omitting them from her claims. The court also said that, if Howell wanted to name Andrew Do as a defendant, she should clarify that in the amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Howell v. STRM LLC - Garden of Eden · No. 3:20-cv-00123
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
Natalia Howell brought an employment-discrimination action against her former employer, Garden of Eden, and Soufyan Abouahmed and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi. The opinion states that Howell was proceeding without an attorney and that the court had granted her application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court then screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Howell alleged that she injured herself while moving boxes at work. She alleged that her supervisor, Andrew Do, refused to let her leave work for medical attention despite her severe pain. She said that medical personnel later found inflammation in her back, gave her a cane, and referred her to physical therapy. She also alleged that her employer denied her workers’ compensation, unemployment, and disability claims.
Claims and Screening Analysis
Howell asserted two claims: discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The opinion states that both claims listed Garden of Eden and Andrew Do as defendants. It also states that Howell named Abouahmed and El-Sissi as defendants on the complaint’s defendant list, but included no allegations or other references to either of them in the complaint.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss a case filed without the filing fee if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court applies the same basic standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must include enough factual allegations to make the claim plausible. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally.
Disposition
The court concluded that Howell’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief against Abouahmed or El-Sissi. It ordered Howell, within 30 days, to file an amended complaint with additional allegations concerning those defendants or to omit them from her claims. The court further directed that, if Howell wished to name Do as a defendant, she should clarify that in the amended complaint. The opinion does not state a disposition of the claims against Garden of Eden or Do beyond that instruction.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.