Jamison v. Schnider National Carrier Inc

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER The Court: (1) DISMISSES the complaint DE 1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis[DE 2 ; and (3) GRANTS Plaintiff to and including May 3, 2018, to file anamended complaint in accordance with this order and either pay thefiling fee or re-file his in forma pauperis petition. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/4/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(kjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION

MONDALE JAMISON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SCHNIDER NATIONAL
CARRIER, INC.,
Defendant.

2:18-CV-120

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Complaint (DE #1) and
the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (DE #2), both filed by
Plaintiff, Mondale Jamison, on March 26, 2018. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court:
(1) DISMISSES the complaint (DE #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(2) DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(DE #2);
(3) GRANTS Plaintiff to and including May 3, 2018, to file an
amended complaint in accordance with this order and either pay the
filing fee or re-file his in forma pauperis petition, making sure
that all information is up to date as of the time of filing; and

(4) CAUTIONS Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the
deadline, this action is subject to termination without further
notice.

BACKGROUND
Mondale Jamison (“Plaintiff”) initiated this case by filing a
complaint (DE #1) and motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
(DE #2) on March 26, 2018.

In his complaint, Plaintiff lists one

defendant, Schnider National Carrier, Inc. (“Schnider”). Plaintiff
alleges that he was unfairly terminated from his employment with
Schnider on April 18, 2017, after being wrongly accused of running
into a trailer with a forklift the day before.

(DE #1, p. 5.)

He

claims that a fellow employee lied about the accident to his
supervisor. (Id.) He also alleges that he was denied unemployment
benefits following the incident.

(Id.) Plaintiff requests damages

for lost pay, lost unemployment benefits, and court costs. (Id. at
3.) Plaintiff indicates that he is bringing his claims pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17 (“Title VII”).

(Id. at 1.)

ANALYSIS
The IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1915, allows an indigent
plaintiff

to

commence

a

civil

action

without

prepaying

administrative costs (e.g. filing fee) of the lawsuit.

2

the

See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 27
(1992). When presented with an IFP application, the district court
makes two determinations: (1) whether the suit has sufficient
merit; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s poverty level justifies IFP
status.

See Denton, 504 U.S. at 27; Smith-Bey v. Hosp. Adm’r, 841

F.2d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 1988).

The screening court must dismiss

the complaint if (a) the allegation of poverty is untrue, (b) the
action is frivolous or malicious, (c) the action fails to state a
claim upon which can be granted, or (d) the action seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
To determine whether the suit states a claim upon which relief
can be granted under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court
applies the same standard as it would to a motion to dismiss filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 611 (7th Cir. 2000).

DeWalt v.

In deciding a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded
factual allegations as true and view them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.
F.3d

1014,

1027

(7th

Cir.

Luevano v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 722
2013).

To

survive

dismissal,

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) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).

A plaintiff “must plead some facts

that suggest a right to relief that is beyond the ‘speculative

3

level.’”
2011).

Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir.
“This means that the complaint must contain allegations

plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) an entitlement to
relief.” Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629, 632-33
(7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Sufficient Merit
Title

VII

discriminating

prohibits
“against

employers
any

from

individual

firing
with

or

otherwise

respect

to

his

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because

of

such

individual’s

race,

color,

religion,

sex,

or

national origin.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff
does not allege that he is a member of any protected class, nor
does the complaint suggest that his termination was because of
illegal discrimination.

Rather, Plaintiff simply alleges that he

was terminated after a fellow employee lied about a forklift
accident.

Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to attach his charge of

discrimination to the complaint, electing instead to only attach
his

right

to

sue

letter,

and

that

letter

does

not

additional clarification as to the nature of his claims.

provide
There is

simply no suggestion that Plaintiff’s status as a member of a
protected class motivated any of Schnider’s alleged employment
actions.

Thus, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim for

employment discrimination, and his complaint must be dismissed.
See e.g. Joren v. Napolitano, 633 F.3d 1144, 1146 (7th Cir. 2011)

4

(to survive dismissal, a complaint must allege that an adverse
employment action was instituted on the basis of the plaintiff’s
sex,

race,

national

origin,

or

some

other

protected

class).

However, as is the general practice in this circuit, the Court will
sua sponte grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint if he
believes he has a sufficient basis for his claims as described in
this order and should he so choose.

See Luevano, 722 F.3d at 1022-

25.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
(1) DISMISSES the complaint (DE #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(2) DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(DE #2);
(3) GRANTS Plaintiff to and including May 3, 2018, to file an
amended complaint in accordance with this order and either pay the
filing fee or re-file his in forma pauperis petition, making sure
that all information is up to date as of the time of filing; and
(4) CAUTIONS Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the
deadline, this action is subject to termination without further
notice.

DATED: April 4, 2018

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

5