Futrell v. Gosnell Police Department
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
TYRONE LEE FUTRELL, SR.
GOSNELL POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Court must dismiss a case brought in forma pauperis if the
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
employment discrimination under federal law. NQ 4. The Court note
appreciates Futrell's timely amended complaint, NQ 5, but it does no
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.
D.P. Marshall Jr. t/
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?