Dupree v. Great Circle et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..denying without prejudice re: 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff Erma J. Dupree, granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Erma J. Dupree IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff s claims against Yvonne Bingham are DISMISSED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause processto issue as to defendant Great Circle at the address provided in the Complaint.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/6/12. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ERMA J. DUPREE,
GREAT CIRCLE, et al.,
No. 4:12CV1981 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The motion will be granted. Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment
of counsel, which will be denied, without prejudice at this time.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review the complaint
and dismiss any part of it that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Upon review of the complaint, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s
claims against defendant Yvonne Bingham.
Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for race
discrimination and retaliation.1 Named as defendants are Great Circle, plaintiff’s former
Although plaintiff did not check the box for “Title VII” on her complaint form,
she included allegations which appear to fall under Title VII for race discrimination and
retaliation in the body of her complaint and outlined these same allegations in her charge
of discrimination attached to her complaint, which specifically states she is bringing her
claims pursuant to Title VII. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10.
employer, and Yvonne Bingham, plaintiff’s former supervisor. Plaintiff alleges that
Yvonne Bingham treated her differently than a white employee and terminated her from
her position as a Foster Parent Provider because of her race and in retaliation for her
Title VII provides a remedy only against an “employer.” The Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals has squarely held that “supervisors may not be held individually liable under
Title VII.” Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community School District, 121
F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d
690, 691-92 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)); see Bales v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 143 F.3d
1103, 1111 (8th Cir. 1998). As a result, plaintiff’s claims against Yvonne Bingham fail
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Additionally, the Court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, and
believes that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time.
There is no
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield
Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether to
appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1) whether the plaintiff
has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for relief; (2)
whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3)
whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s
allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are
complex. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson,
728 F.2d at 1005. Plaintiff has been able to articulate her employment discrimination
claims in a clear manner at this juncture, and the Court believes that the facts and legal
issues are not so complex that she cannot continue to do so in the near future. As such,
plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
[#2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims against Yvonne Bingham
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process
to issue as to defendant Great Circle at the address provided in the Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Doc. #4] is DENIED without prejudice.
An Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Order.
Dated this 6th day of December, 2012.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?