Nyaro v. Cabral

Filing 11

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. The Court ALLOWS the 7 Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES theComplaint with leave to file an amended complaint by March 28, 2017. If Plaintiff does not file a sufficient amended complaint by that date, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. A copy of this Order has been mailed to the Plaintiff. (Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
ONORIODE NYARO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 16-cv-11900-LTS
)
KENNETH CABRAL,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 7)
March 7, 2017
SOROKIN, J.
On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff Onoriode Nyaro filed a pro se Complaint alleging that,
in 2014, he lost employment due to hostile behavior by Defendant Kenneth Cabral, who appears
to have been Plaintiff’s co-worker. Doc. 1. Plaintiff asserts this Court “has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Id. at 1. He does not assert any other basis for
jurisdiction. Defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that none of the requirements of
diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 are satisfied. Doc. 7 at 2-3.
Section 1332 only “empower[s] federal district courts to adjudicate civil actions between
citizens of different States where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Wachovia Bank
v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 306 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The
Complaint states that Plaintiff and Defendant are both from Massachusetts, and fails to state the
amount in controversy. Doc. 1. Thus, the Complaint fails to satisfy § 1332, and the Court may
not exercise diversity jurisdiction.

1

That said, construing Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), Plaintiff appears to be asserting he was the victim of employment discrimination
and/or a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The Court would have
jurisdiction over a Title VII claim, even if the parties are not citizens of different states. If he
wishes, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint stating such a claim or some other federal
claim. 1
Accordingly, the Court ALLOWS the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) and DISMISSES the
Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint by March 28, 2017. If Plaintiff does not file
a sufficient amended complaint by that date, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

1

Ordinarily, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies – by filing a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission within 300 days following the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice –
before proceeding under Title VII in federal court. Frederique-Alexandre v. Dep’t of Nat. & Envtl. Res. Puerto
Rico, 478 F.3d 433, 440 (1st Cir. 2007); Araujo v. UGL Unicco-Unicco Operations, 53 F. Supp. 3d 371, 379 (D.
Mass. 2014).

2