2:25-cv-00983
D. Nev.Sep 5, 2025Background
- Pro se plaintiff Major Benjamin D. Samia sued multiple defendants alleging disability discrimination, forced resignation, and denial of due process arising from his employment.
- Samia filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; he submitted the affidavit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
- The Court granted in forma pauperis status and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- The Court found the complaint failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to state ADA discrimination or ADA retaliation claims against any defendant.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice and Samia was given leave to file an amended complaint that must be complete on its face and plead facts addressing each element of asserted claims.
- The amended-complaint deadline was set for October 6, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samia may proceed IFP | Samia submitted § 1915(a) affidavit showing inability to pay | No opposing position recorded | Court granted in forma pauperis status |
| Whether complaint survives § 1915(e)(2) screening | Complaints allege ADA discrimination, retaliation, wrongful discharge | Defendants argue (implicitly) claims lack factual support | Court dismissed complaint for failure to state a claim |
| Whether ADA discrimination claim was adequately pleaded | Samia alleges disability-based discrimination and discharge | Complaint lacks factual allegations showing disability, qualification, or causal link | Court found ADA discrimination not plausibly pleaded |
| Whether ADA retaliation claim was adequately pleaded | Samia alleges retaliation for protected activity | Complaint lacks facts showing protected activity, adverse action, and but-for causation | Court found ADA retaliation not plausibly pleaded and directed amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual matter plausibly showing entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plaintiff must plead more than labels and conclusions)
- Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (pro se complaints construed liberally but dismissal appropriate when no set of facts would entitle relief)
- Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (§ 1915(e)(2) incorporates Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
- Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (elements for retaliation claims)