between the defendant and a person within the personal jurisdiction of the court is not enough.” Stauffacher v. Bennett, 969 F.2d 455, 460 (7th Cir.1992). Therefore, Chiriia failed to make out a prima facie case that the district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the English defendants. Chirila’s argument that the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend his second amended complaint to address the personal jurisdiction deficiency is also unpersuasive. Although the district court did not grant Chiriia an evidentiary hearing or preliminary discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, the court reviewed his complaint under a particularly lenient standard of review. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The district court applied the correct
holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding plaintiff must make concrete showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm denying motion to quash subpoena to undercover identity of doe defendants where inter alia plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to show it could establish prima facie claim holding that a plaintiff must merely make out a prima facie case to withstand a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where there has been no evidentiary hearing holding that a title vii plaintiff need not plead the elements of a mcdonnell douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss