Teal v. Buckley et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/5/2014. (c/m 12/5/2014 aos, Deputy Clerk)
-II _.u'
r
~t..
QURi
U.S. O\~'ciV~f;.~r{lANI)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISI[I1l.1~\f 'cOU'!J: \;:
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ~!\l\f,0.N1) l'n
SOlllltem Divisioll
Ckf
*
ERIC L. TEAL,
OFfiCE
(;RSOI8ELI
."".
OEPUi'f
*
Plaintiff,
32
*
\3'f---Case No.: G.JH-14-2SS0
\'.
*
CHRIS BUCKLEY, el al.
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
This action
IS
brought by unrepresented
*
*
*
*
*
*
OPINION
Plaintiff Eric L. Teal against his Itlrlner
employer. R & R Ventures Incorporated. and his ftmner supervisor. Chris Buckley. for race
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.c.
seq. ECF NO.4.
This Memorandum
and accompanying
Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 16. and Plaintiffs
Order address Plaintiffs
** 200c.
el
Motion to
Motion to File Amended Complaint and lor
Extension of Time to Submit Response to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. ECF
I
o. 17.
Defendants have not responded to these motions and the time lor doing so has passed. The Court
tinds that a hearing is unnecessary.
Plaintiffs
See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons stated below.
Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 16. is DENIED. Plaintiffs
Motion to tile an
Amended Complaint. ECF No. 17. is DENIED without prejudice. Finally. Plaintiffs Motion for
Extension of Time to Submit Response to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. is
GRANTED. This Memorandum Opinion disposes of ECF Nos. 16 & 17.
I.
BACKGROUND
According
abandonment.
supervisor.
to Plaintiffs
Complaint.
he was terminated
ECI' NO.4 at 2. PlaintifT explains
Jay. and an individual
on April 8. 2014 for alleged job
that. on that day. he was sick and spoke with a
named Dion Berry. !d. He claims that he "was not told that
[he] could not clock out:' but when he did so. Dion Berry followed him outside and told him that
Chris
Buckley
would take him ofT the schedule
arrived at work on April 10. 2014. Chris Buckley terminated
3. Plaintiff
contends
that a white
employee.
III. When PlaintitT
for the rest of the week.
Anita
him for job abandonment.
Cannon.
was not fired even though
out on April 7. 2014 alier stating that she was sick. III. at 3. Plaintiff
clocked
Maryland
Unemployment
Board granted Plaintiff unemployment
job. III. He states that other black employees
Plaintiff
completed
attached
an "employee
and he clocked
Plaintiff
out without
also attached
status
change"
Varuel. which reads: "When
that he wasn't
any management
a hand-written
she
assel1S that the
because he did not abandon
his
have been fired. !d.
to his Complaint.
by Dion Berry and states "Eric Teal was terminated
On the 9th Eric told other employees
III. at 2-
This
fiJr job abandonment
form
was
on 4/9/13.
dealing with any crap and said target this.
approval
and went home:'
note li'om an individual
ECF NO.4-I
whose name appears
at I.
to be Tracy
Eric came to work he got upset when Dion told him to go to the
other side with Jay. Eric said that he was not going to put up with Dion's
shit and clocked
out
and left:' ECF No. 4-1 at 2.
Plaintiff
("EEOC").
filed a complaint
with the U.S. Equal Employment
See ECI' No. 4-2 (EEOC Dismissal
was unable to conclude
that the information
The EEOC issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue
Opportunity
Commission
and Notice of Rights). The EEOC found that it
it obtained
established
letter on May 13.2014.
2
!d.
a violation
of Title VII. !d.
Plaintiff then liled two complaints in this Court against his formcr employer and former
supervisor, one on August II. 2014 and one on August 21. 2014. which have been consolidated.
ECF NO.3. One Defendant
Chris Buckley. has filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has liled a Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion to
Amend/Correct
Complaint and for Extension of Time to Rcspond to Dcfendant's
Motion to
Dismiss. ECF Nos. 16 & 17.
II.
MOTION
TO APPOINT
Under 28 U.S.c.
COUNSEL
~ 1915(e)( I), this Court
IS
authorized
to appoint counsel to an
unrepresented litigant in a civil proceeding. however. this is a discretionary function that is to be
exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Cook
1'.
BO/lnd.\'.
518 F.2d 779. 780 (4th Cir. 1975).
42 U.S.c. ~ 2000(e)(!)( I) also provides that the Court may appoint counsel in a Title VII case
under "such circumstances
as the court may deem just." Whether a civil case warrants the
appointment of counsel depends on the characteristics of the elaim and the litigant Wl1isl'lwn/ ",
u.s. Dislricl
Yllam.
739 F.2d 160. 163 (4th Cir. 1984). abroga/I'd on 01111'1'
grtl/l/1(II' hy Mallard
COllrl,
490 U,S, 296. 298 (1989), When an unrepresented litigant has a colorable elaim but lacks
1'.
the capacity to present it. counsel should be appointed. Id. (ciring Gordon \'. Ll'l'kl'.
574 F.2d
1147. 1173 (4th Cir. 1978), Although the Fourth Circuit has not considered what factors are
relevant
in deciding
if circumstances
considered the plaintiffs
warrant appointment
of counsel, other courts have
financial ability to retain an attorney. the efforts of the plaintilTto retain
counsel. and the merits of the case, SI'I' YOlll1g \'. Kmarl. 911 F.Supp. 210. 211 (E,D.Va, 1996)
(ciring Mill'S
1'.
Dl'p'I
of Army.
881 F,2d 777. 784 n.6 (9th Cir. 1989); Caslon \'.
SWI'S.
ROl'h/lek
& Co.. 556 F,2d 1305, 1308-10 (5th Cir. 1977)). In a Title Vll case. the Court considers the
EEOC's conclusions regarding Plaintiffs
Garrison
1'.
S((III' o{.IId..
Grl'a/
Oaks
claim when deciding whether to appoint counsel. SI'I'
0111' .•
850 F.Supp. 366. 368 (D. Md. 1994).
3
In his Motion to Appoint Counsel.
"better olr
represented
by counsel.
Plaintiff asserts that he is not an attorney and would be
ECl' No. 16. lie states that he only tiled the lawsuit on his
!d. Further. in his motion for leave to proceed injimlla
own behalf because of time constraints.
pal/peris. PlaintitT indicates that he earned $312.00 per month and pays $300.00 per month for
room and board. ECl' No.2.
Plaintiff
has not suggested
While the Court is sympathetic
to Plaintiffs
to the Court that he has engaged
financial
situation.
in any efforts to retain counsel.
To ..ati \'. Board o{7i"l/SleeS o{ MOnlgomelY Comml/Ility College. 2004 WL 5215490
(D.Md.
Jan. 20. 2004)
consideration
when denying
the EEOC
provided.
(factoring
found
ECF
determination
4-2.
to make
of counsel).
not tind a violation
While
this
of Title
is by no means
of the case. it is relevant
efforts
counsel
into
As for the merits of the case.
VII based on the information
binding
to the determination
to retain
*1
on the
of whether
Court"s
appointed
ultimate
counsel
IS
Garrisoll. 850 l'.Supp. at 368.
warranted.
Under the facts presented
Complaint.
to the Court. although
not frivolous
PlaintifT has not shown the Court that he has a colorable
the appointment
plaintiff
failure
motion for appointment
that it could
No.
plaintitTs
at
of counsel.
was demoted
of the complaint
circumstances.
because
at 212 (finding
of racial discrimination
was not frivolous
appointment
Motion for the Appointment
of counsel).
of Counsel
III.
has requested
complaint
stating
that
solely on the reading
In the absence
of exceptional
is DENIED.
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiff
of the
Title VII claim warranting
See YOl/llg. 911 F.Supp.
but did not support
Plaintiffs
trom the reading
without
prejudice.
If Plaintiff
consent
from defense
counsel
sixty days to amend
his Complaint.
This Motion
is DENIED
wishes to amend his complaint.
he must first attempt
pursuant
If consent
to local rule 103.6(d).
4
cannot
to obtain
be obtained.
Plaintiff may file a Motion for Leave to Amend his Complain!. and he must comply with this
COUtt's local rules by attaching the following to his motion: (I) a clean copy of the proposed
amended pleading. and (2) a copy of the proposed amended pleading in which additional
material is underlined or set forth in bold-faced type and stricken material is lined through or
enclosed in brackets. See Local Rules 103.6(a) and (c).
IV. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff has requested an additional sixty days to respond to Defendant's
Motion to
Dismiss. citing several personal and tinancial struggles. Defcndant has not opposed Plaintiffs
request. Thc Court GRANTS Plaintiff s motion. and Plainti ITwi II have sixty days Irom the date
of this Order to respond to Delcndant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12).
V. CONCLUSION
For thc reasons stated above. Plaintiffs
Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 16. is
DENIED:
Plaintiffs
Motion to file Amended Complain!.
ECF No. 17. is DENIED: and
Plaintiffs
Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Response to De!cndant's Motion to Dismiss.
ECF No. 17. is GRANTED.
A separate Order shall issue.
Dated: December
~/<
--
'7 .2014
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge
5
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?