(PS) Garcia v. Procter and Gamble Company
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRIAN GARCIA, No. 2:17-cv-2591-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY,
15 Defendant.
17 The court previously granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, but 18 dismissed his original complaint with leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After 19 receiving an extension of time, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 7. As 20 discussed below, plaintiff’s first amended complaint states potentially cognizable discrimination 21 and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 22 As previously explained to plaintiff, although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see 23 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be 24 dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief 25 that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) 26 27 This case, in which…