(PS) Harris v. PowerSchool Group LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TERESA L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cv-2872-DAD-JDP (PS)
ORDER
Teresa L. Harris brings this action against PowerSchool Group LLC and alleges that it
violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act. ECF
No. 1 at 4. Her complaint is inadequate, however, because it does not contain a short and plain
statement of her claims. I will dismiss the complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity to remedy
the deficiencies identified below.
Screening and Pleading Requirements
A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed
in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. Id.
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,
Case 2:25-cv-02872-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not
require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not
identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,
1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that
give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264
n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).
However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements
of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,
1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated against her by failing to hire her, terminating
her employment, failing to promote her, imposing unequal terms and conditions of employment,
and retaliating against her. ECF No. 1 at 5. She claims that defendant discriminated against her
on the basis of race, color, gender/sex, religion, and age. Id. Plaintiff has failed, however, to
explicitly plead any allegations in connection with these claims. Instead, she refers the reader to
an Equal Opportunity Commission questionnaire. ECF No. 1 at 9-12. A brief timeline of
incidents is also included, but this appears to have been prepared in conjunction with her
questionnaire, and I cannot tell whether it comprises the entirety of her claims against defendant.
Id. at 13. Additionally, this timeline does not match each category of discrimination that plaintiff
alleges, implying that there are additional claims or, at least, additional context that is lacking. A
viable complaint should make all allegations explicit and inform the defendant of each claim
Case 2:25-cv-02872-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
made against it. Referring the reader to administrative documents and assuming that they will
infer the claims therefrom is insufficient.
The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Any amended complaint will entirely
supersede the initial one and must be complete in itself. It should be titled “First Amended
Complaint” and be filed within thirty days of this order’s entry.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended
complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may
result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.
5. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02872-DAD-JDP Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3