Futrell v. Gosnell Police Department

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing Futrell's 2 Complaint due to Futrell not making a plausible claim for unlawful discrimination. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/31/2013. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION

TYRONE LEE FUTRELL, SR.

v.

PLAI TIFF

No. 3:13-cv-143-DPM

GOSNELL POLICE DEPARTMENT

DEFEN ANT

ORDER
The Court must dismiss a case brought in forma pauperis if the

ourt

determines that the action "fails to state a claim on which relief m y be
granted[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Every claim filed in federal court
must be "plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009 . The
Court noted both these requirements in June when it ordered Fu
submit an amended complaint with facts that made out a plausible clai

for

employment discrimination under federal law. NQ 4. The Court note
appreciates Futrell's timely amended complaint, NQ 5, but it does no
muster.
The Court is mindful that a Title VII plaintiff does not need to lead
facts filling out the elements of a prima facie case. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
534 U.S. 506 (2002). But Futrell's complaint does not state a claim t all.

Futrell has said only that the Gosnell Police Department has repeatedly ailed
to hire him. NQ 5 at 2. The complaint lacks even the conclusory aile
(disapproved in Iqbal) that the Department's motives for passing hi
were unlawful. Because Futrell has not made out a plausible clai
unlawful discrimination, the Court dismisses his complaint.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. t/
United States District Judge
3I ~

-2-

)..o/3

for