Golden v. Georgia Department of Corrections

Filing 6

Order to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims under the ADA for monetary damages are frivolous. It is not clear whether Plaintiffs Complaint 5 seeks injunctiverelief or what specific relief she seeks. (Dkt. 5 at 6). Therefore, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended Complaint with the Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order, specifying whether she is seeking injunctive relief, and if so, what specific relief she seeks. Plaintiffs amended complaint shall not assert any claims for money damages, as such claims are barred and are thus frivolous. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order, the case shall be dismissed. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 05/03/11. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
CYNTHIA D. GOLDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11-CV-0067-RWS

ORDER
This case comes before the Court for the purpose of a frivolity review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). After reviewing the record, the Court
enters the following order.
Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [1] was granted on
March 15, 2011. (Dkt. [4]). Plaintiff’s Complaint [5] was submitted to this
Court for a frivolity review. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), “the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . 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.” A claim is frivolous when it appears from the face of the

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

complaint that the factual allegations are “clearly baseless” or that the legal
theories are “indisputably meritless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327,
109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d. 338 (1989); Carrol v. Gross, 984 F.2d 393, 393
(11th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to assert an ADA1 claim for discrimination in
employment on the basis of Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff alleges that her
employer, the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”), forced her to take
leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and
use her accumulated vacation time in so doing. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary
damages under both Title I and Title II of the ADA are barred. See Bd. of Trs.
of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) (holding that Eleventh
Amendment bars claims against states for money damages under Title I of the
ADA); Clifton v. Ga. Merit Sys., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1368 (holding that
Congress failed to validly abrogate state sovereign immunity with regard to

1

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Plaintiffs Complaint [5] 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.], but Title VII
does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
Because the Court typically construes the complaint of a pro se litigant liberally,
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11thCir. 1998), the Court will
view Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting claims pursuant to Title I and II of the ADA.
2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

employment discrimination actions under Title II of the ADA). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA for monetary damages are frivolous and are
DISMISSED. It is not clear whether Plaintiff’s Complaint [5] seeks injunctive
relief or what specific relief she seeks. (Dkt. [5] at 6). Therefore, Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to file an amended Complaint with the Court no later than 30 days
from the date of this Order, specifying whether she is seeking injunctive relief,
and if so, what specific relief she seeks. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall not
assert any claims for money damages, as such claims are barred and are thus
frivolous. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this
Order, the case shall be dismissed.
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of May, 2011.

________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)