Ellis v. Donahoe et al
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 plaintiff shall show cause, in writing and no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why this case should not be dismissed as time-barred. (Show Cause Response due by 4/15/2013.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on March 25, 2013. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MARY A. ELLIS,
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, et al.,
No. 4:13CV238 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me upon the application of plaintiff for leave to
commence this action without payment of the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). Upon consideration of the financial information provided with the
application, the Court finds that the applicant is financially unable to pay any portion
of the filing fee. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Additionally, the Court will order plaintiff to show cause why this action
should not be summarily dismissed as time-barred.
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to
conduct an initial review of the case and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A
case can be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if the statute of limitations has run.
E.g., Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., for alleged racial discrimination in the workplace. Plaintiff
attached a right-to-sue letter to her complaint; the right-to-sue letter was mailed to
plaintiff on November 15, 2012. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.
A plaintiff in a Title VII action has ninety days from receipt of the right-to-sue
letter to file a civil action. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). Failure to file a timely civil action
warrants dismissal of the complaint. E.g., Braxton v. Bi-State Development Agency,
728 F.2d 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 1984).
The ninety-day period in this case elapsed on February 13, 2012. Plaintiff did
not file her suit until a year after the ninety-day period lapsed. As a result, the
complaint is time-barred.
Because plaintiff is pro se, the Court will give plaintiff the opportunity to show
cause why the case should not be dismissed as time-barred. Failure to respond to this
Order or failure to show adequate cause will result in the dismissal of this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause, in writing and
no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order, why this case
should not be dismissed as time-barred.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2013.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
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?