Ambrose v. United States Department of Employment Security et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff shall file, on or before April 29, 2016, an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as specified in this Order. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A) (2). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/14/2016. (anc) Modified on 4/15/2016 in order to update typo (anc).

Plaintiff’s Complaint to the Court for the required frivolity review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff’s Complaint [3] consists mostly of allegations regarding the
hardships she suffered as a result of her unemployment. (See Compl. at 3-8).
Plaintiff appears to seek unemployment benefits. She claims she was denied
benefits “[f]ollowing in time [sic] a third subsequent attempt to be allowed proper
and sufficient procedure before the Board of Review and its administrative law
agents.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff does not identify the specific “Board of Review” with
which she sought relief.
She claims her action arises from Defendants’ “defective interpretation of
Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, Trade Act of 1974 and its amendments.”
(Id.). Plaintiff does not explain why the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act
applies, or why the “Illinois Department of Employment Security” is named as a
Defendant.
The Complaint appears to allege that Plaintiff was an employee at the
Microtel Inn in Dunwoody, Georgia. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff does not state that she
was terminated from her employment at the Microtel, stating only that a “mutually
beneficial employee/employer work relationship could not be recognized.”
(Id. at 3). Plaintiff claims “[t]he defendants are in possession of plaintiff’s

2

livelihood, and they hold on to it until today. Plaintiff has not received final
paycheck from previous employer. She has filed case number 15MS011307 with
magistrate Court Fulton County, GA.” (Id. at 10).
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review

A court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if at any time the
court determines the action is frivolous or malicious or that it fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). “Failure to state
a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Wilkerson v. H&S, Inc.,
366 F. App’x 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483,
1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). Under this standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

3

Review for frivolousness, on the other hand, “‘accords judges not only the
authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but
also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” See
Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). A claim is frivolous when it “has
little or no chance of success,” that is, when it appears “from the face of the
complaint that the factual allegations are ‘clearly baseless’ or that the legal theories
are ‘indisputably meritless.’” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993)
(quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327).
Plaintiff filed her Complaint pro se. “A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). Nevertheless, a pro se plaintiff must comply with the threshold
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Beckwith v. Bellsouth
Telecomms. Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005). “Even though a pro se
complaint should be construed liberally, a pro se complaint still must state a claim
upon which the Court can grant relief.” Grigsby v. Thomas, 506 F. Supp. 2d 26,

4

28 (D.D.C. 2007). “[A] district court does not have license to rewrite a deficient
pleading.” Osahar v. U.S. Postal Serv., 297 F. App’x 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2008).
B.

Analysis

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and has determined that it
does not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8
requires that a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain a statement of the
grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction, does not explain why Illinois law applies, why
the “Illinois Department of Employment Security” is named as a Defendant, or
whether the Court has jurisdiction over the Illinois department. It is also unclear
from the face of the Complaint what relief Plaintiff seeks, and Plaintiff’s
allegations do not specify the claims she seeks to assert against each Defendant.
The Court requires Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, on or before
April 29, 2016, that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Amended Complaint must identify the claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against
each Defendant, the specific facts that support each claim, and a statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction over this action as well as over each Defendant.

5

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file, on or before

April 29, 2016, an Amended Complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as specified in this Order. Failure to comply with this
Order shall result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Local Rule 41.3(A)(2).

SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2016.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6