PULLINS v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al

Filing 6

Entry Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Show Cause Order: This resolves all of the claims alleged in the show cause response. The dismissal of the claims will not, in this case, lead to dismissal of the action at this time. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through August 31, 2015, in which to file show cause why this action should not be dismissed ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/3/2015. Copy sent via US Mail.(DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
PIERRE QUINCY PULLINS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) No. 1:15-cv-0936-WTL-DKL
)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
Entry Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Show Cause Order
I. Background
On June 19, 2015, this Court screened the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it because the plaintiff failed to set forth an adequate factual basis for
his claim. The Court directed the plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.
On July 20, 2015, the plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order setting forth factual
allegations in support of his complaint. In the show cause response, the plaintiff alleges that
National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Regional Director Rik Lineback,.in conjunction with
his former employer Amazon, and its law firm Littler Mendelson, conspired to “defeat or dismiss
my claims under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA. . . ).” The plaintiff further alleges that
Mr. Lineback provided information to Amazon and Littler Mendelson that led to a break-in of his
vehicle in September of 2012 wherein the radio was stolen. The plaintiff also alleges that Mr.
Lineback conspired with the Indianapolis District Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) to dismiss his claims of retaliation filed with both the EEOC and the
NLRB.

II. Insufficient Claims
a.

First, any claims related to the decision of the NLRB must be dismissed as outside

the jurisdiction of this Court. Any appeal of a decision of the NLRB must be taken to an appropriate
United States Court of Appeal. See www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/decide-cases
b.

Construed liberally, the complaint against the United States Government and the

National Labor Relations Board can be understood to assert a claim under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. (“FTCA”). However, the only proper defendant in an action pursuant
to the FTCA is the United States itself. Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir. 1982).
If treated as against the Regional Director of the NLRB in his official capacity, the action is in all
respects other than name against the United States. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985).
The plaintiff claims damages resulting from the break-in of his vehicle in September of 2012 [dkt.
5, at pp. 2-3]. The FTCA contains a two-year statutory filing deadline. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
Because the plaintiff’s notice of tort claim was filed on October 24, 2014, [dkt. 1, at pg. 3-4], any
damages that allegedly resulted from this portion of his claim are untimely and dismissed. An
untimely tort claim is forever barred against the United States. Id.
c.

Finally, the plaintiff’s complaint includes claims against Littler Mendelson and

Amazon under Indiana state law. Normally, when “all federal claims are dismissed before trial,
the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving
them on the merits.” Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994). The
customary rule will be followed here. To the extent that the plaintiff intends to assert state law
claims, such claims are dismissed.

III. Further Proceedings
This resolves all of the claims alleged in the show cause response. The dismissal of the
claims will not, in this case, lead to dismissal of the action at this time. Instead, the plaintiff shall
have through August 31, 2015, in which to file show cause why this action should not be
dismissed. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1022 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Without
at least an opportunity to amend or to respond to an order to show cause, an IFP applicant’s case
could be tossed out of court without giving the applicant any timely notice or opportunity to be
heard to clarify, contest, or simply request leave to amend.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/3/15

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Pierre Quincy Pullins
1227 North Rural Street
Indianapolis, IN 46201