Glass Davis v. Missouri Department of Transportation et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complain t at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, plaintiff shall submit to the Court a legible copy of the EEOC Notice of Right to Sue Letter that she has received relative to this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice and without further notice to her. Granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles on 12/12/2012.(NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA GLASS DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV2190 FRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Cynthia Glass Davis for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee [Doc. #2].
Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the
Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing fee.
Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed
in forma pauperis at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the
complaint the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff,
unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32
(1992).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Plaintiff has submitted her action on
one of this Court's standard "Employment Discrimination Complaint" forms;
however, she has failed to attach a legible copy of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Notice of Right to Sue Letter, clearing showing
the field marked “Date Mailed.” As such, the Court does not have sufficient
information to review her employment claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Taking into consideration the fact that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma
2

pauperis, the Court will grant her time to file a legible copy of her EEOC Notice of
Right to Sue letter.
In accordance with the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue upon the complaint at this time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of
this Order, plaintiff shall submit to the Court a legible copy of the EEOC Notice of
Right to Sue Letter that she has received relative to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to comply with this Order,
the Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice and without further notice to her.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2012.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3