Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sean Michael Hill, representing themselves and proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Maplebear, Inc., which does business as Instacart and operates a platform for same-day grocery shopping and delivery. Hill alleges they began working as an Instacart shopper in October 2024 and that Instacart exercised detailed control over their performance. According to the complaint, Instacart did not reimburse work expenses, ensure minimum wage, pay overtime premiums, or provide itemized wage statements. Hill pleads five claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the California Labor Code. These are allegations only, and the court made no findings on them.
The complaint invokes both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, although the civil cover sheet asserts only diversity. After granting the fee waiver, Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and issued a screening order on October 16, 2026, in the Northern District of California. The order is a magistrate judge's screening ruling. It is neither a dismissal nor a final judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded the complaint is deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Its allegations that Hill was not reimbursed, not paid minimum wage, not paid overtime premiums, and not given itemized wage statements are conclusory. Without added facts about the underlying conduct and resulting harm, the court cannot say whether a plausible claim is stated. Rule 8 also calls for specific legal provisions rather than general bodies of law, so Hill was told to clarify which sections of the FLSA and UCL underlie the first cause of action.
On jurisdiction, the order observes that the pleadings reasonably show diversity of citizenship but do not suggest an amount in controversy above $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). FLSA claims raise a federal question, but claims based solely on state law generally do not. Hill therefore should explain why the court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. These points are flagged for Hill to address in an amendment. They are not final rulings on jurisdiction.
The court also cautioned that a self-represented litigant's right to proceed without counsel is personal and, under Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., does not extend to other parties. No count expressly invokes the collective-action mechanism of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). But the complaint cites it, refers broadly to Instacart workers, and appears to seek wide-ranging injunctive and declaratory relief on their behalf. The court noted that district courts in the Ninth Circuit have rejected pro se collective FLSA claims and said Hill would likely need a lawyer to pursue one. Hill may file an amended complaint by October 30, 2026. If Hill does not, or the amendment still fails to state a claim, the magistrate judge will recommend that a district judge dismiss the case. The order also refers Hill to the court's Legal Help Center and its pro se handbook.
Key Takeaways
- A screening order under § 1915(e)(2)(B) is not itself a dismissal; here the court identified defects and allowed amendment by October 30, 2026.
- Conclusory wage-and-hour allegations, without facts about the conduct and resulting harm, do not satisfy Rule 8(a)(2), and plaintiffs should identify the specific statutory sections they rely on.
- Federal pleadings must support jurisdiction, either an amount in controversy above $75,000 for diversity or an explanation of supplemental jurisdiction over state claims joined with an FLSA claim.
- A self-represented plaintiff generally cannot pursue claims on behalf of others, and the order indicates a collective FLSA claim would likely require counsel.
- If an amendment fails, the magistrate judge says a recommendation of dismissal to a district judge would follow, which would not itself be a final judgment.
Why It Matters
This is a district court screening order. It is not a reported decision and carries no precedential weight, and it resolves nothing on the merits of Hill's wage theories. Its value is practical, because it shows what a Northern District of California judge expects from a self-represented gig-economy worker before a case against a platform company moves past the threshold stage.
What remains open is substantial. Hill has not yet shown a plausible entitlement to relief, an adequate basis for federal jurisdiction, or any ability to litigate for other workers. The order makes no finding on whether Hill was an employee or whether any wage obligation was violated. Readers should treat it as guidance on amendment: plead facts about work performed, pay received, expenses and harm, name the exact provisions relied on, address jurisdiction, and limit the relief sought to the individual plaintiff unless counsel appears.