Blakes v. Pace Northwest Div.

Filing 8

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 11/7/2011: For reasons set forth in the Statement portion of this order, plaintiff Gilbert Blakes Jr.'s "In Forma Pauperis Application" 3 is denied. Blakes's "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" 4 is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 11/7/2011: Mailed notice (am)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

James F. Holderman

CASE NUMBER

11 C 7208

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

11/7/2011

Gilbert Blakes Jr. vs. Pace Northwest Division

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For reasons set forth in the Statement portion of this order, plaintiff Gilbert Blakes Jr.’s “In Forma Pauperis
Application” [3] is denied. Blakes’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” [4] is dismissed as moot. Civil
case terminated.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed.

STATEMENT
On October 26, 2011, plaintiff Gilbert Blakes, Jr. (“Blakes”) submitted to this court a “1st
Amendment - Amend Complaint” (Dkt. No. 7) alleging that his former employer, Pace Northwest Division
(“Pace”), discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by terminating his employment in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”). Blakes has also submitted an “In
Forma Pauperis Application” (Dkt. No. 3) and a “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Dkt. No. 4), which
are pending before the court.
Requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) are reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. To ensure that
indigent litigants have meaningful access to the courts, § 1915 allows an indigent litigant to commence an
action in federal court without paying the administrative costs of the lawsuit. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 27 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1988). However, the court must deny a request to
proceed IFP if (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a
claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
“The ADA, ADEA, and GINA all require a plaintiff to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC
or with a state’s fair employment practices agency before filing a complaint in federal court.” Ze-Ze v.
Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atl. States Regions, Inc., No. 1:10cv959, 2011 WL 320945, at *4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28,
2011) (Brinkema, J.); see 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-6. In other words,
“[a] plaintiff may not bring claims in a lawsuit that were not included in the EEOC charge.” Cable v. Ivy
Tech. State College, 200 F.3d 467, 476 (7th Cir. 1999).
Blakes alleges in his first amended complaint that he filed a charge with the EEOC on March 10,
2010, “asserting the acts of discrimination indicated in this complaint.” (1st Am. Compl. ¶ 7.1.) Although
Blakes did not attach a copy of the relevant EEOC charge to his amended complaint, the March 10, 2010
EEOC charge was attached as an exhibit to Blakes’s original complaint in this lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 1.) The
11C7208 Gilbert Blakes, Jr. vs. Pace Northwest Division

Page 1 of 2

March 10, 2010 EEOC charge alleges that Pace discriminated against Blakes on the basis of his race, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not allege that age, disability, or genetic
information was a basis for Pace’s discriminatory treatment of Blakes.
Because Blakes has failed to plead and exhaust his ADA, ADEA, and GINA claims before the EEOC,
he has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted in this court. See Hill v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1142,
1145 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that “failure to exhaust is not a jurisdictional defect, albeit it is a reason for
dismissal”). Blakes’s “In Forma Pauperis Application” (Dkt. No. 3) therefore must be denied, and his
“Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (Dkt. No. 4) is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated.

Courtroom Deputy
Initials:

11C7208 Gilbert Blakes, Jr. vs. Pace Northwest Division

A.M.M.

Page 2 of 2