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)

Download PDF
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. ยง 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

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?