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)

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