Nordheim v. Code Tenderloin

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ODIN NORDHEIM, Case No. 25-cv-04969-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING AND 9 v. DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 CODE TENDERLOIN, Re: ECF No. 19 Defendant. 11 12 13 Before the Court is Pro Se Plaintiff Odin Nordheim’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) 14 against Defendant Code Tenderloin. ECF No. 19. Performing the screening required by 28 15 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court now dismisses the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim 16 on which relief may be granted. 17 Nordheim’s claims arise from his “removal and exclusion” from Code Tenderloin’s “All 18 Star Job Readiness Program.” ECF No. 19 at 4. The SAC, like the first amended complaint 19 (“FAC”), brings claims for (1) violation of procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) 20 First Amendment retaliation under Section 1983; and (3) disability discrimination and failure to 21 accommodate under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. ECF No. 9 at 5–6; ECF No. 19 at 12– 22 14, 16–18. The SAC also adds new claims for (1) disability discrimination and failure to make 23 reasonable modifications under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and (2) retaliation 24 for protected activities under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. ECF No. 119 at 14–16. 25 The Court dismissed Nordheim’s FAC by adopting a report and recommendation by 26 Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. ECF No. 16. In Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation, she 27 noted that Nordheim had failed to allege that the defendant—a private party—had acted “under ] add new allegations that Defendants engaged in state action. Rather, it marginally repackages the 2 || state-action allegations from the FAC—that Code Tenderloin receives federal funding and that it 3 “administer[s] eligibility, exclusion, and referral decisions as part of a jointly coordinated public 4 || workforce pipeline.” Compare ECF No. 9 § 19 with ECF No. 19 §§ 37, 38. As Judge Ryu 5 concluded and this Court affirmed, these allegations are vague, conclusory, and insufficient to 6 || establish that the private defendant’s actions can be “fairly attributable to the state.” ECF No. 13 7 || at S—6 (quoting Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010)). 8 || Nordheim’s Section 1983 claims for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments are 9 || dismissed with prejudice. 10 Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation also found that Nordheim’s disability-related 11 claim failed because he “plead[ed] only that he experiences ‘disability-related impairments’ and 12 || that he ‘requested, expressly or by implication, reasonable accommodations,’ and that Code 13 Tenderloin ‘failed to engage in the interactive process or to provide reasonable accommodations.’” 14 || ECF No. 13 at 5. Although Nordheim has added two additional disability-related claims, he does 3 15 || not add any new factual allegations and still fails to identify (1) what disability he experienced; (2) 16 || how that disability impacted his experience with Code Tenderloin; (3) what accommodation he 17 || requested; and (4) what actions Code Tenderloin took in response. Nordheim’s remaining claims, Zz 18 || which concern the failure to accommodate his disability, disability-related discrimination, and 19 || retaliation for activity protected by federal disability law, are therefore dismissed with prejudice. 20 Nordheim has now received three opportunities to plead viable claims but failed to do so. 21 In addition, the SAC replicates the issues identified in this Court’s prior screening order. 22 || Dismissal is therefore with prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 6, 2026 . 2 JON S. TIGAR 6 nited States District Judge 27 28