Temesgen Abdissa v. UNC Chapel Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00394-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767042]. Mailed to: T. Abdissa. [15-2187]

Appeal: 15-2187

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2187

TEMESGEN TESHOME ABDISSA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNC CHAPEL HILL,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:15-cv-00394-BO)

Submitted:

February 29, 2016

Decided:

March 3, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Temesgen Teshome Abdissa, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2187

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Temesgen Teshome Abdissa appeals the district court’s order
granting his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing
his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
(2012).

Abdissa alleged that his former employer discriminated

against him based on his race and national origin, in violation
of

Title

VII

of

the

Civil

Rights

Act

of

1964,

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2015).

42

U.S.C.A.

For the reasons

that follow, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for
further proceedings.
A

pro

construed.
1978).
dismiss

se

litigant’s

Gordon

v.

pleadings

Leeke,

574

are

F.2d

to

1147,

be
1151

liberally
(4th

Cir.

Once construed liberally, however, a federal court must
an

in

forma

pauperis

case

at

any

time

the

court

determines that “the action . . . is frivolous or malicious[,] .
. . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[,] or
. . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from

such

dismissals
discretion.

relief.”
of

a

28

U.S.C.

complaint

as

§

1915(e)(2)(B).

frivolous

for

an

We

review

abuse

of

Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir.

2004)
It does not appear beyond doubt that Abdissa’s complaint
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); McLean v. United States, 566
2

Appeal: 15-2187

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Examples of frivolous claims
include

those

whose

factual

allegations

are

so

nutty,

delusional, or wholly fanciful as to be simply unbelievable.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

Indeed, even at the Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) stage, a complaint may proceed “even if it
strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the alleged] facts
is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Because the district court dismissed

the complaint without giving Abdissa an opportunity to clarify
his claims, see Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603, 604 (4th Cir.
1965) (per curiam) (holding that, if pro se complaint contains
potentially

cognizable

opportunity

to

district

court’s

claim,

particularize
order

plaintiff

should

be

we

vacate

allegations),

dismissing

Abdissa’s

given

complaint

the
as

frivolous and remand to permit Abdissa to amend his complaint
and for further proceedings.

We express no opinion as to the

viability of Abdissa’s underlying claims.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

3