Moyo v. Department of Labor

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/28/12. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 6/29/12)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NDABEZINHLE MOYO
Plaintiff

*
*

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-12-1854
*

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR,
Defendant

*
******

MEMORANDUM
On June 22, 2012, Plaintiff Ndabezinhle Moyo, a resident of Alberta, Canada, filed the
instant complaint. ECF No. 1. Accompanying the complaint is plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), which shall be granted.
Plaintiff states that “The Department of Labor failed me in many ways….” He then details
his work history and efforts to contact the EEOC. ECF No. 1. Although a complaint need not
contain detailed allegations, the facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level and require “more than labels and conclusions,” as “ ‘courts are not bound to accept
as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be
supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 561.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain “(1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support (2) a short and plain statement of the
1

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought….”
Moreover, each "allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The Court has thoroughly examined the complaint and finds that it is insufficient and does
not comply with federal pleading requirements.

If, after affording the matter a generous

construction, the court cannot determine the precise nature and jurisdictional basis of the complaint,
one can only imagine the difficulties which would ensue in having defendants attempt to answer the
complaint. It is well settled law that complaint allegations must “give the defendant fair notice of
what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A ., 534
U.S. 506, 512, (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The complaint satisfies neither

requirement. Thus, the complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice, by separate Order, which
follows.

June 28, 2012
Date

/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge

2