Ousley v. Rescare Homecare

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shirley P. Mensah on 5/14/13. (LAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DEBORAH OUSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RESCARE HOMECARE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV898 SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court 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. 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 race and age discrimination. Plaintiff attached a
right-to-sue letter to her complaint; the right-to-sue letter was mailed to plaintiff on
January 23, 2013. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 10, 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 April 23, 2013. Plaintiff did not
file her suit until seventeen days after the ninety-day period ended. As a result, the
complaint appears to be 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.
Accordingly
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.

-2-

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 14th

day of May, 2013.

/s/ Shirley Padmore Mensah
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-