Clayton v. Children's Hospital et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on August 19, 2015. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL CLAYTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV1177 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act
alleging employment discrimination. He did not file this case within the ninety-day time limit,
and this case is dismissed without further proceedings.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court may dismiss an action under § 1915( e) if "it is apparent the statute of limitations has
run.". Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992).
A plaintiff in a Title VII or ADA 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).
Plaintiff alleges that defendant unlawfully terminated him because of his race, because he
reported harassment, and because his wife and child are disabled. Plaintiff attached a right-tosue letter to the complaint, which was mailed to plaintiff on February 9, 2015. The ninety-day

period in this case elapsed on approximately May 10, 2015 . Plaintiff, however, did not file the
instant action until July 30, 2015.
Plaintiff says that the case should not be dismissed as untimely because "Attorney Elena
Parker for Children's Hospital agreed with Attorney Jeremy Gogel for the Plaintiff to toll the
deadline for the Plaintiff to file any EEOC/MHRA claims until July 30, 2015."
"Courts have generally reserved the remedy of equitable tolling for circumstances which
were truly beyond the control of the plaintiff." Hill v. John Chezik Imports, 869 F.2d 1122, 1124
(8th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has not shown that circumstances beyond his control prevented him
from timely filing this action. As a result, this case is dismissed as untimely.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.

Dated this ffaay of August, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE