Smith v. United Parcel Service et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Gary T. Smith. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a )(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to be issued upon the complaint as to United Parcel Service.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Stan Roux and Anthony Taylor, the Clerk shall not issue process o r cause process to be issued, because thecomplaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim or cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 7/18/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

GARY T. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-CV-965-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Gary T. Smith for leave
to commence this action without payment of the required filing fee.

Upon

consideration of the financial information provided with the application, the
undersigned finds that plaintiff is financially unable to pay any portion of the filing
fee. As such, the Court will grant plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #2].
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.

In addition to United Parcel Service (“UPS”),

plaintiff names Stan Roux (the UPS director), and Anthony Taylor (the UPS division
manager) as defendants in this action.
Title VII imposes liability only against an “employer” who engages in certain
discriminatory practices. As such, plaintiff's claims against United Parcel Service are

not subject to dismissal at this time. As to the UPS director and division manager,
however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has squarely held
that “supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII.” BonomoloHagen 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, 1110-11
(8th Cir. 1998). Thus, as to Stan Roux and Anthony Taylor, the complaint will be
dismissed, without prejudice, as legally frivolous.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis [Doc. #2] is GRANTED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause
process to be issued upon the complaint as to United Parcel Service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to defendants Stan Roux and Anthony
Taylor, the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to be issued, because the
complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim or cause of action. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

2

A separate Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 18th day of July , 2013.

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3