Nichols v. Fulton County Library

Filing 2

ORDER granting In Forma Pauperis. This Court STRIKES Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs will be permitted to file, within 14 days of the entry of this order, an amended complaint. Failure to re-plead will result in the termination of this action against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant, with prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to resubmit this matter to the undersigned fifteen days after the entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield, III on 09/21/2011. (rvb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
DARNETTA M. NICHOLS,
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,
NO. 1:11-cv-3046-ECS
v.
FULTON COUNTY LIBRARY,
Defendant.

O R D E R
The above-styled case is presently before the Court on
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis with an action
under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. § 12111, et seq. (“ADA”).

After consideration by the

Court of Plaintiff’s affidavit of indigency, her motion to
proceed in forma pauperis IS HEREBY GRANTED; however, service
SHALL NOT ISSUE at this time.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a federal court may
dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint if the court
determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the
action (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

A claim is

frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.”

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Although

a

document

filed

pro

se

is

to

be

construed

liberally by courts and held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89 (2007), a complaint must nevertheless contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

The purpose of this

requirement is to “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”

Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations
omitted).

To provide adequate notice of the claim and its

grounds, a complaint must therefore contain more than just
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

Rather, it must show

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.

A claim has facial

plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.”

Id.

Applied here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s

complaint is submitted on the pro se complaint form for Title VII
claims (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq.), and Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on

2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

the

basis

of

disability.

Moreover,

Plaintiff’s

factual

allegations [Doc. 1-1, at 3-4] are scant and fail to state a
claim under the ADA because the statements are irrelevant,
incoherent, and, at best, conclusory.

For example, Plaintiff

alleges

the

that

Andrea

Akiti,

one

of

persons

she

says

discriminated against her, engaged in “unprofessional behavior
that took place in the children’s room office were [sic] she took
her hand and p [sic] directly in my face, and continued embarrass
me throughout the library.” She also alleges that Sylvia CulverAldridge, the “H.R. Manager,” has been “harrassing [sic] me with
Personnel Claims - no light duty restrictions.” [Doc. 1-1, at 3].
The

complaint

does

not

allege

the

basis

for

her

claim

of

disability, or any specifics that would suggest that she was the
object of any discrimination based on disability. Even construed
liberally,

these

statements,

like

all

the

details

of

discrimination provided by Plaintiff, fail to allege factual
material sufficient to state a claim with facial plausibility
under the ADA.

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

The leniency given to pro se litigants “does not permit the
district court to act as counsel for a party or to rewrite
deficient pleadings.”

Lampkin-Asam v. Volusia County School

Board , 261 Fed.Appx. 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2008); see also McNeil
v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

However, this Court, in the

exercise of its inherent power, may intervene sua sponte and

3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

order a repleader where a plaintiff has “failed to connect their
cause[] of action to the facts alleged.” Wagner v. First Horizon
Pharmaceutical Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 2006).
In light of the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any discernible legally
cognizable

claim

for

relief,

and

that

it

is

this

Court’s

supervisory obligation sua sponte to direct the Plaintiffs to replead their complaint in a manner that complies with the Federal
Rules.

See Wagner, 464 F.3d at 1275.

STRIKES Plaintiff’s complaint.

Therefore, this Court

Plaintiffs will be permitted to

file, within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order, an
amended complaint that complies with Rule 8(a) and 10(b) by
presenting each claim for relief with such clarity as to permit
the Defendants to discern Plaintiff’s legal claims and the
factual bases therefor, and to frame a responsive pleading or
motion.

Failure to re-plead will result in the termination of

this action against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant, with
prejudice.
The Clerk is

DIRECTED

to resubmit this matter to the

undersigned fifteen days after the entry of this order.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of September, 2011.

/s/ E. Clayton Scofield
E. Clayton Scofield III
United States Magistrate Judge

4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)