Jackson v. McDonalds et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Given the dismissal of this case, the motion for appointment of counsel is found to be moot. Signed by Chief Magistrate Paul Judge A Zoss on 10/01/2010. (copy w/nef to non-ecf filer) (des)

Download PDF
Jackson v. McDonalds et al Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION RODNEY F. JACKSON, Plaintiff, vs. McDONALD'S, TONI DELFS, SCOTT GREEN, KATHY and KEITH PETRIC, Defendants. ____________________ This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's pro se application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1), and motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 2). In his proposed Complaint, the plaintiff alleges the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. He claims these actions occurred during the summer and fall of 2008. In considering whether to grant in forma pauperis status, the court must dismiss any case which the court finds fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The law requires a Title VII complainant to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or within 300 days after such occurrence if the complainant initially instituted discrimination proceedings with a state or local agency. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1). If a claim is not filed within the applicable time period, it is time-barred. National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 2070, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002). The plaintiff in this case has failed to show that he filed a charge with either the EEOC or the Iowa Civil Rights Commission within the time allowed by law. As such, the No. C10-4058-DEO ORDER Dockets.Justia.com court finds he has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and this case is dismissed. The dismissal, however, is without prejudice; the plaintiff may refile the case if he can show he has complied with the applicable statute of limitations. Given the dismissal of this case, the motion for appointment of counsel is found to be moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1st day of October, 2010. PAUL A. ZOSS CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?