Futrell v. Osceola Police Department

Filing 17

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 2/25/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
TYRONE LEE FUTRELL, SR.
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 3:13CV00144 BSM

OSCEOLA POLICE DEPARTMENT

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Defendant Osceola Police Department’s (“Osceola”) motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 14]
is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To meet the 12(b)(6) standard, a complaint
must sufficiently allege facts that will entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Although detailed factual allegations are not required,
threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, are insufficient. Id.
Plaintiff Tyrone Lee Futrell filed this Title VII lawsuit, claiming that Osceola did not
hire him because he is black and is a man. The crux of his complaint appears to be that he
“never received a phone call or a letter from [Osceola] stating who they hired for the
position.” Pl.’s Compl. at 3. Osceola moves to dismiss, contending that Futrell did not
exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit, and that he fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Osceola’s motion is granted. Futrell filed
this suit on May 31, 2013, but did not file charges with the EEOC until July 16, 2013, and

did not obtain a right-to-sue letter until September 24, 2013. Moreover, his EEOC complaint
alleges discrimination due to his sex and age, but this suit alleges discrimination based upon
sex and race. It is clear that Futrell did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
suit.
Futrell also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While Futrell
claims he was discriminated against, the only facts he pleads in support of this is that Osceola
did not call him to tell him who received the position. Additionally, Futrell appears to be
a frivolous filer. On the same day he filed this complaint, Futrell filed six other actions in
this district, most of which claim discrimination based on failure to receive a phone call from
the hiring entity. Three of those cases have already been dismissed. See Futrell v. Imperial
Security, Case No. 3:13CV00140 SWW (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Futrell v.
Gosnell Police Dep’t, 3:13CV00143 DPM (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Futrell v.
Craighead Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3:13CV00145 DPM (dismissed for failure to state claim);
Futrell v. Mississippi Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 3:13CV00139 BSM; Futrell v. Arkansas
Northeastern College, 3:13CV00141 KGB; Futrell v. Bono Police Dep’t, 3:13CV00142 JLH.
Accordingly, Osceola’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 14] is granted, and this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February 2014.
_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE