Scruggs v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 4 , 2 ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the comp laint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment ofcounsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 3/26/13. (CEL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STEPHANIE B. SCRUGGS,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, et al.,
No. 4:13CV356 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Stephanie B. Scruggs
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 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 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
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in this action brought pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. The named defendants
are the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Patrick Hollis (an
EEOC employee). Plaintiff alleges that, after being terminated from her employment
with Greyhound Lines, she went to the EEOC and was interviewed by defendant
Hollis, who told plaintiff to return after she went "through the steps with the union,
including arbitration." Plaintiff states that, after a year and a half, she was told the
president would not arbitrate her case, and thus, she returned to the EEOC. Plaintiff
claims that "Mr. Hollis tried to deny that he ever told her [to do what she did]."
Plaintiff states that she was subsequently issued a right-to-sue letter by a different
EEOC employee. Plaintiff complains that defendant Hollis "didn't want to file [her]
charge, because he was being lazy," and this "took [her] into a deeper stage of
depression." Plaintiff states that the "EEOC pulled false fraudulent misleading
information," and she "feel[s] [she] has been cheated out of everything."
Having carefully reviewed plaintiff's allegations, the Court concludes that this
action is legally frivolous and fails to state a cognizable claim for relief, because no
private right of action against the EEOC and its employees exists under Title VII. See
McDaniel v. U.S. Postal Services, 210 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2000); Gibson v. Missouri
Pac.R.Co., 579 F.2d 890, 891 (5th Cir. 1978); Kuser v. EEOC, 1978 WL 181 (D.Md.
1978). As such, this action will be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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, because the complaint is legally frivolous and
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel [Doc. #4] is DENIED as moot.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2013.
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?