Pittman v. Sitemetric, LLC.

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RANDY DEWAYNE PITTMAN, Case No. 25-cv-07707-PCP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. 9 10 SITEMETRIC, LLC., Defendant. 11 12 Pro se plaintiff Randy Dewayne Pittman filed this action against his former employer 13 Sitemetric, LLC, alleging that Sitemetric terminated him in retaliation for on-the-job speech. Mr. 14 Pittman claims that his termination violated the First Amendment; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3); 15 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); and the National Labor 16 Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157. He also asserts a state common-law claim for wrongful 17 termination in violation of public policy. Concurrent with his complaint, Mr. Pittman filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis, i.e., without paying the otherwise mandatory filing fee to 19 initiate a lawsuit. The Court previously granted that application and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 20 § 1915(e)(2), screened Mr. Pittman’s complaint. See Dkt. No. 7. As the Court explained in that 21 order, Mr. Pittman’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief under any of the federal 22 constitutional and statutory provisions he invokes, and his state common-law claim rises and falls 23 with his federal claims. The Court therefore dismissed the case with leave to amend. The Court 24 instructed Mr. Pittman that, if he failed to file an amended complaint by December 22, 2026, the 25 Court would dismiss his case with prejudice. 26 Though the Court granted Mr. Pittman leave to amend, Mr. Pittman has not filed an 27 amended complaint. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s previous order, the Court therefore 1 dismisses the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2). 2 See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: January 23, 2026 P. Casey Pitts 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28