Arraiz v. City of Miami Parks and Recreation

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Closing Case. Motions terminated: 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Alejandro Arraiz. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 5/25/2016. (tm) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-Civ-21737-COOKE
ALEJANDRO ARRAIZ f/k/a
FIDEL ALEJANDRO ARRAIZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI PARKS AND
RECREATION, HAULOVER
BEACH PARK,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before me upon Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”) (ECF No. 3). After carefully
reviewing Plaintiff’s Application, Plaintiff’s Complaint for Employment Discrimination
(“Complaint”) (ECF No. 1), the record, and relevant legal authorities, Plaintiff’s
Application is denied without prejudice, and his Complaint dismissed without prejudice.
I. DISCUSSION
The screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable to this matter as
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), courts are
permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [ ] the court determines that … (B) the action or appeal
(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are governed by
the same standard as those under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (holding that a complaint may survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss only if it contains factual allegations that are “enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint
are true (even if doubtful in fact)”). Additionally, while pro se complaints are held to a less

stringent pleading standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Tannenbaum v.
United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), a court may not “serve as a de facto
counsel for a party, or … rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an
action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Plaintiff purports to bring an action for employment discrimination pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Title VII prohibits employers
from discriminating “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.” McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370, 1373 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of racial
discrimination by showing that: 1) he belongs to a protected class; 2) he was qualified to do
the job; 3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and 4) his employer treated
similarly situated employees outside his class more favorably. Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d
961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008).
While Plaintiff need not show a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination to avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief, see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506,
515 (2002), his Complaint must nonetheless satisfy the pleading requirements set forth in
Twombly, Iqbal, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While Plaintiff purports to bring
an action pursuant to Title VII on the basis of race for failure to hire, he fails to provide
sufficient facts to support his legal conclusions. He includes general facts regarding an
interview he had in May 2014, a subsequent drug and background test, a failed background
test, and alleged misconduct when handling and testing his blood sample. See generally
Compl., ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff fails to include any factual allegations regarding the
purported race discrimination he faced, nor does he include any specific allegations
regarding similarly situated individuals outside his class who were treated more favorably.
A reading of the few factual allegations included in Plaintiff’s Complaint omit reference to
any facts from which the Court could surmise that his claim purports to be a Title VII claim
for race discrimination. Plaintiff instead focuses on a background check and then a blood
test.

2

II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs

(ECF No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have through and including June
13, 2016 by which to file an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint must adhere to
the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and contain a short and
plain statement of Plaintiff’s claims as well as identify the federal statutes or rights providing
the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall name all of the parties against whom he
has claims.

Plaintiff shall separate his claims into counts, with appropriate headings

indicating the cause of action, the party or parties against whom he raises each cause of
action, the elements applicable to that claim, and the facts giving rise to the claim. Plaintiff
should pay particular attention to the elements of a racial discrimination claim under Title
VII outlined above. Plaintiff shall also number the paragraphs of his Amended Complaint.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Employment Discrimination (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED

without prejudice.
3.

The Clerk shall administratively CLOSE this case in the interim.

4.

All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.

2016.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 25th day of May

Copies furnished to:
Alejandro Arraiz, pro se
P.O. Box 3959
Hollywood, FL 33083-3959

3