Adams v. Penske Logistics
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -- HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. # 4 ] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint [Doc. # 6 ] is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [Doc.# 3 ] is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 06/19/2013. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DORAINE ADAMS, SR.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the application of Doraine Adams, Sr. for
leave to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 [Doc. #4]. 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. As a result, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In addition, the Court will grant
plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint [Doc. #6]. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject
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 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 in either
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
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, 3233 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that Penske Logistics retaliated against him for filing workers’
compensation claims in the State of Missouri. As this Court previously noted in
Adams v. Penske Logistics, No. 4:13-CV-1267-TCM (E.D. Mo.)(concerning
plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims)(Doc. #39, p. 9), plaintiff may have a state-law
cause of action relative to his retaliation claims.1 The claims do not, however, afford
plaintiff Federal Court jurisdiction in the instant action, and the Court finds no other
basis for subject matter jurisdiction at this time. For these reasons, this action will be
dismissed, without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #4] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an
amended complaint [Doc. #6] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause
process to issue, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc.
#3] is DENIED as moot.
Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law provides, in relevant part:
No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way
discriminate against any employee for exercising his
rights under this chapter . Any employee who has
been discharged or discriminated against shall have a
civil action for damages against his employer.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.780.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2013.
/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
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?