Thayer v. Landmark Event Staffing and Services
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-03938
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Thayer v. Landmark Event Staffing and Services, Judge Gilliam dismissed the case without leave to amend because the self-represented plaintiff’s amended complaint did not state a coherent claim.
Zac J. Thayer’s case was dismissed, and Landmark Event Staffing and Services was no longer required to respond to the action in the district court.
What happened
In Thayer v. Landmark Event Staffing and Services, Zac J. Thayer filed an amended complaint while representing himself. The court reviewed it under the law requiring screening of complaints filed by people allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court said the amended complaint appeared to involve employment discrimination and constitutional violations, but its allegations about radio hacking were not coherent. It did not explain what Landmark did wrong or how the alleged hacking related to Thayer’s employment. The court also said attachments could not replace the required factual allegations.
Judge Gilliam found that Thayer had not corrected the problems identified in the earlier dismissal order and that the defects could not be cured by another amendment. The court dismissed the case without leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Thayer v. Landmark Event Staffing and Services · No. 4:21-cv-03938
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
Zac J. Thayer, who was representing himself, filed an amended complaint against Landmark Event Staffing and Services. The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires screening of complaints filed by people permitted to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had previously dismissed Thayer’s original complaint for failure to state a claim, explained the deficiencies, and allowed him 28 days to file an amended complaint. The earlier order warned that failing to correct the deficiencies would result in dismissal.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief and enough factual matter to make a claimed violation plausible. Because Thayer was representing himself, the court read his allegations liberally, but it was not required to accept conclusory allegations, unsupported factual deductions, or unreasonable inferences.
The court found the amended complaint insufficient under § 1915 and the federal pleading rules. It appeared that Thayer sought to bring an employment-discrimination action and also alleged several constitutional violations. However, the amended complaint appeared to concern radio hacking and contained no coherent allegations. The court could not identify the acts or failures to act that allegedly violated the law, or explain how the alleged hacking related to Thayer’s employment. The court also said Thayer needed to describe the facts supporting each claim and identify the specific defendant associated with each claim; attachments could not substitute for those allegations.
Because Thayer had already been informed of the deficiencies and given an opportunity to amend, the court concluded that he had shown an inability to state legally recognizable claims and that the defects could not be cured by alleging other facts. It therefore declined to allow another amendment.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the case WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.