Steed v. SBM Site Services, LLC at Wells Fargo Advisors
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Doc. No. 4.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint for failure to state a claim is GRANTED, said di smissal to be without prejudice. (Doc. No. 20). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss filed onNovember 13, 2012 (Doc. No. 9), is DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 1/14/13. (JWJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LOUIS C. STEED, JR.,
SBM SITE SERVICES, LLC,
AT WELLS FARGO ADVISORS,
No. 4:12CV01844 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed
this action on March 17, 2011, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff
filed the action on a form for an employment discrimination claim, checking boxes
indicating that he was harassed and terminated by Defendant based on his race. The
record suggests that Plaintiff, who is African American, was told that he was terminated
because of misconduct. Attached to the complaint are a letter Plaintiff wrote to Defendant
while still employed, in which he asserts that lies were told about him and asking for an
independent investigation; and a letter of commendation for his work that he had received.
By Order dated December 3, 2012, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s initial complaint
was insufficient to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint
that complied with the Rule. The Court advised Plaintiff to set forth in detail the facts that
he believes support his claim that he was discriminated against or harassed on the basis of
race. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint, and Defendant argues that it should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
To withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain enough facts to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “[A] complaint” does not “suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
Here, as Defendant argues, the amended complaint contains no allegations that
Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated employees of a different race, or
any factual support for his checking on the complaint form that he was terminated or
harassed because of his race. Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s motion other
than to assert that the truth would come out in court. “Although pro se complaints are to
be construed liberally, they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims
advanced.” Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2006)
(citation omitted). “Pro se litigants must set [a claim] forth in a manner which, taking the
pleaded facts as true, states a claim as a matter of law.” Cunningham v. Ray, 648 F.2d
1185, 1186 (8th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted) (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro
se complaint where no facts in support of conclusory allegation were presented in the
complaint or in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss).
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to meet these pleading standards. The
Court also does not believe that this is a case in which appointment of counsel is
warranted. See Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 590 (8th Cir. 1984) (listing
the relevant factors a court should consider in determining whether to appoint counsel in a
Title VII case). The factual and legal issues are not complex and Plaintiff has made no
showing of any efforts to secure counsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED. (Doc. No. 4.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
amended complaint for failure to state a claim is GRANTED, said dismissal to be without
prejudice. (Doc. No. 20).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed on
November 13, 2012 (Doc. No. 9), is DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of January, 2013.
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?