Smith v. Pro Logistics Inc. 1 et al
Filing
16
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Court; denying 15 Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading for Good Cause for the reasons stated in the order. The case is dismissed with prejudice as to the stand-alone constitutional claims. The balance of the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on October 27, 2014. (ddi)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CALVIN SMITH
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv447-DPJ-FKB
PRO LOGISTICS INC. 1, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This pro se employment-discrimination case is before the Court on Plaintiff Calvin
Smith’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Court and Leave to Amend Pleading for
Good Cause [15]. On October 10, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss but
gave Plaintiff until October 24, 2014 to “file a motion for leave to amend—attaching a proposed
amended complaint” and warned him that “[f]ailure to move to amend within the time permitted
will result in the dismissal without prejudice of this case.” Order [14] at 7.
Rather than following the Court’s instructions, Plaintiff filed his two-page motion for
reconsideration on October 24, 2014. Plaintiff begins by stating that the Court ruled against him
“without giving him an opportunity to address the Court personally and indicate any all matters
that have brought him to Court.” Mot. [15] at 1. If Plaintiff suggests that the Court should
have held a hearing or allowing oral argument, Uniform Local Rule 7(b)(6)(A) states:
The court will decide motions without a hearing or oral argument unless otherwise
ordered by the court on its own motion or, in its discretion, upon written request
made by counsel in an easily discernible manner on the face of the motion or
response.
Plaintiff made no such request, and it would have been denied anyway because the motion was
considered under Rule 12(b)(6), which limits the scope of review. Regardless, Plaintiff failed to
initially respond to Defendants’ motion, yet the Court gave him that opportunity by issuing a
show cause order, and then considered his response and his “Cross Rebuttal.” The Court fully
considered Plaintiff’s responses before ruling.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff purports to seek leave to amend in the title of
his motion, but he fails to attach a proposed amended complaint—as the Court said he must to
avoid dismissal—and appears instead to concede that he has already pleaded his best case. He
states in his first numbered paragraph, “Plaintiff feels that he has plead [sic] enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 . . . .” Pl.’s Mot.
[15] at 1. The Court has already ruled that he has not, and the present motion fails to
demonstrate that he could.
Plaintiff next claims the Court should have denied Defendants’ motion because it was
filed under the wrong rule, but he never identifies the correct rule. Id. Plaintiff may have been
confused by the Court’s observation that Defendants did not move under Rule 12(b)(1), but that
observation was merely intended to show that Defendants’ motion was not challenging the
Court’s jurisdiction and was instead brought under Rule 12(b)(6) to challenge the sufficiency of
the Complaint. Oct. 10, 2014 Order [14] at 3.
As for the alleged failure to exhaust his statutory-employment claims, Plaintiff merely
repeats his contention that the EEOC turned him away. Pl.’s Mot. [15] at 2–3. This is the same
argument the Court addressed previously. Plaintiff did not, as instructed, submit a proposed
amended complaint remedying his failure to plead exhaustion, and even if the Court were to
consider the materials he previously submitted in his “Cross Rebuttal,” it remains unclear that he
ever exhausted.
2
Finally, Plaintiff persists in his claim that “Defendant[s] violated certain Constitutional
Amendments.” Mot. [15] at 2. But as the Court explained in its order on the motion to dismiss,
private parties generally cannot violate an individual’s constitutional rights. See Order [14] at
5–7. And to the extent Plaintiff views these as stand-alone claims brought directly under the
Constitution, it is generally held that the Constitution itself does not create a private right of
action. See Hearth, Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 617 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1980) (noting that
such claims are generally brought under § 1983). For this reason, the Court will dismiss the
constitutional claims with prejudice.
In short, Plaintiff’s motion provides no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s order on
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he should be granted
leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion [15] is denied, and the case is dismissed with prejudice as to
the stand-alone constitutional claims. The balance of the Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 27th day of October, 2014.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?