Luckadue v. Leader Newspaper Inc

Filing 5

ORDER directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before August 25, 2011. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 8/9/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LAURA L. LUCKADUE V. PLAINTIFF 4:11CV00599 JMM THE LEADER NEWSPAPER INC. DEFENDANT ORDER Pending before this Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Complaint. The Eighth Circuit has instructed that the decision of whether a complaint is frivolous or malicious precedes the decision of whether to grant in forma pauperis status and whether to order service of process. See Carney v. Houston 33 F.3d 893, 895 (8th Cir. 1994)(quoting Gentile v. Missouri Dept. Of Corrections, 986 F.2d 214 (8th Cir. 1993)). “If the complaint is frivolous or malicious, the district court should dismiss it out of hand.” Id. A complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-27 (1989). In this case, Plaintiff names her former employer, The Leader Newspaper Inc., as the Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Plaintiff has filed a lengthy narrative of alleged facts related to her employment with the Defendant. However, Plaintiff has failed to provide facts which state a claim for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint unless she can amend her Complaint to specify facts which state a claim for violation of Title VII. The Court notes that in order to establish a prima facie case of 1 discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) that she is a member of a protected class, (2) that she was qualified for her job, (3) that there was an adverse employment action taken against her by the Defendant, and (4) that some evidence supports the inference of improper motivation. Hannoon v. Fawn Engineering Corp., 324 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir.2003). Plaintiff must file an Amended Complaint on or before August 25, 2011. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the Complaint. IT SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2011. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?