(PS) Stevens v. IMKO Workforce Solutions, 2:17-cv-01026

Plaintiff Ray Stevens applied (Dec 2014) through IMKO Workforce Solutions for an electrician assembler job at Unison Corporation and was told (Jan 27, 2015) he was disqualified because of his criminal record.
Plaintiff has prior misdemeanor convictions (2010, 2013) which he contends are not job-related and do not justify exclusion from the position.
Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on race (Title VII) and age (ADEA) and initially filed pro se; the case proceeded in forma pauperis.
The district court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend, finding the employer’s criminal-history explanation facially legitimate and plaintiff’s allegations of pretext conclusory.
First amended complaint alleges pretext based on two different explanations for not hiring (criminal history vs. a layoff due to contract termination) but contains no factual allegations tying the decision to race or age.
The magistrate judge concluded further amendment would be futile, recommended dismissal with prejudice, and stayed further proceedings pending resolution of the recommendations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states plausible Title VII race-discrimination claim	Stevens contends inconsistent reasons (criminal record vs. layoff) show pretext masking race discrimination	Defendants gave legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (criminal-history policy / employment layoff)	Dismissed: no factual allegations showing race was a factor; pretext allegation conclusory and insufficient
Whether complaint states plausible ADEA age-discrimination claim	Stevens alleges same-pretext theory that the stated reasons hide age animus	Defendants assert legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no age-based conduct alleged	Dismissed: no factual support that age influenced decision; claim not plausibly pleaded
Whether leave to amend should be granted again	Stevens implicitly seeks another chance to plead facts showing discrimination	Defendants oppose further amendment as futile given prior notice of deficiencies	Denied: plaintiff had opportunity, was given specific notice, failed to cure defects; further amendment would be futile
Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice	Plaintiff seeks to proceed on amended complaint	Defendants seek dismissal; argue claims frivolous/deficient	Recommended dismissal with prejudice and case closure; proceedings stayed pending review

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolous litigation standard under §1915)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (threadbare recitals/conclusory allegations insufficient)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (courts accept well-pled allegations in pro se complaints)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Neitzke companion: Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (frivolousness standard in Ninth Circuit)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1988) (liberal construction for pro se pleadings)
Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1987) (leave to amend ordinarily required for pro se plaintiffs)
Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1996) (no leave to amend if amendment would be futile)
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1998) (objection deadlines and waiver of appeal rights if not timely filed)
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural rules on objections to magistrate judge recommendations)