Robert Lee Manning, Jr v. Space Explorations Technologies Corporation

facts plausibly suggesting that he is qualified to be a SpaceX “Project and Management Lead.” Indeed, the complaint says nothing about that position’s requirements, so it is impossible to know whether Plaintiff has even properly alleged that he is qualified to meet those—yet unknown—requirements. But that is an essential element of a Title VII discrimination claim for failure to hire. See Morita v. S. California Permanente Med. Grp., 541 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir. 1976); Slaughter-Payne v. Nicholson, 2007 WL 9658013, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21, 2007). Plaintiff has also alleged no facts showing that the SpaceX position remained open after he applied, and that SpaceX continued to seek applicants after rejecting him. Even “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey uv. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). For these reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before December 7, 2019, why his in forma pauperis application should not be denied and this action dismissed because of the deficiencies outlined above. To discharge this order, Plaintiff must do…