Andrews-Byrd v. National Records & Archives Administration

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION: [SEE MEMORANDUM FOR COMPLETE DETAILS] For the foregoing reasons, the Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal, which will dismiss this action without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on 3/6/2025. (TMT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
COURTNEY D. ANDREWS-BYRD,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL RECORDS & ARCHIVES
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:24-cv-01285-MTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Amended Employment
Discrimination Complaint. Plaintiff has checked the boxes on the form complaint to
indicate she is bringing this action under (1) Title VII; (2) the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act; (3) the Americans with Disabilities Act; (4) the Rehabilitation Act; and
(5) something she calls the “Illinois work from home law.” For the reasons that follow,
the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s action without prejudice.
Standard on Initial Review
Complaints filed without prepayment of the filing fee are subject to pre-service
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Rinehart v. Weitzell, 964 F.3d 684, 687 (8th
Cir. 2020); Carter v. Schafer, 273 F. App’x 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). To state
a claim for relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more
than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
upon judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
When reviewing a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must
give it the benefit of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district
court should construe the plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be
considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th
Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true,
state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th
Cir. 1980). Federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just
because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint.” Stone
v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914–15 (8th Cir. 2004).
The Amended Complaint and Supplements
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination case on the Court’s form employment
discrimination complaint, alleging her employer, the National Records and Archives
Administration (NARA), discriminated against her from January to July 17–19, 2024. See
Doc. [9]. By placing a checkmark on the lines of the form complaint, Plaintiff indicated
each of seven forms of discrimination occurred—race, religion, national origin, color,
gender, disability, age (birth year is: 1976)—and that other discrimination occurred, which

2

she alleged was “medical condition aggravated intentionally via ongoing harassment.” Id.
at 7.
Nowhere in the Amended Complaint, however, did she allege any acts of
discrimination. She alleged no facts regarding her race, religion, national origin, color,
gender, or disability. The only information the Court has is that she was born in 1976 and
the reasonable inference that she is female given that she signed her name as “Mrs.
Courtney D. Andrews-Byrd.” See Rinehart, 964 F.3d at 688 (explaining that in an in forma
pauperis complaint review, a court should draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s
favor). As to the conduct she is complaining of, again without any supporting factual
allegations, Plaintiff checks the lines for termination of her employment, failure to
accommodate her disability, terms and conditions of her employment differ from those of
similar employees, retaliation, harassment, and “other.”

As to the “other” conduct

complained of, she states, “wage theft (no wages/salary) paid from June 2024-July 2024,”
and “cancellation of medical benefits on 6/15/2024, 1 day after telework approval pending
RA medical review and harassment resolution (resolve).” Id. at 4.
When asked to state briefly the essential facts of her claim, including the specific
conduct she believes is discriminatory, she stated only, “See attached documents to support
(email copies submitted).” Id. at 6. She attached to her Amended Complaint two pages of
documents concerning her change of beneficiary information for her retirement account
but does not explain the relevance of this information. Also, she attached documents from
the Illinois Department of Employment Security, copies of her health insurance cards, two
pages from Google maps, a letter from the United States Department of the Interior

3

explaining health insurance deductions, and an authorization to provide limited access to
medical information for her employer, again without any explanation of their relevance.
Plaintiff has not filed a copy of her charge of discrimination or her right-to-sue letter
even after being ordered to do so on January 17, 2025. See Doc. [10]. Instead, she
responded by filing a document from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
dated January 22, 2025, that acknowledged that she had filed an appeal that day. She also
attached a memorandum to the Court stating that the Court should communicate with the
EEOC “to settle for a suitable date to complete appeals process and the continuation of this
complaint.” Doc. [11] at 4. The final page of her supplement is another undated
memorandum to the Court, “request[ing] the Court to refer to Washington, DC—EEOC
Appeals Dept for their intended timeline for [right-to-sue] issuance after appeal completion
that is entitled under the law to have when needed and DC agrees I suppose.” Id. at 5. As
best the Court can determine from this document, Plaintiff has not received her right-tosue letter. 1
Discussion
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] pleading that states a claim
for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

1

For context, the Court notes that in prior supplements to the original complaint, Plaintiff often
included irrelevant documentation, including texts to a person identified as “Pork Chop,” an email
from Google regarding a disputed purchase, and an email concerning alleged identity theft, hacking,
data breaches, and digital theft. See Doc. [6]. Forty-two pages of another supplement include
documents regarding Plaintiff’s consumer complaint with her electrical company, union
correspondence, and documents regarding a disputed ATM withdrawal. See Doc. [7]. She has
continued, without explanation, to file numerous supplements of no apparent relevance. See, e.g., Doc.
[18-8] (an email welcoming Plaintiff to her “YouTube Premium membership”); Doc. [20] (someone
else’s birth certificate).

4

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does
not comport with this requirement. Rather than provide a short and plain statement of the
essential facts of her claim, including specifically the conduct she believes was
discriminatory, Plaintiff refers to attached documentation. The Court, though, is not
required to piece together a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf by searching through the numerous
(and altogether irrelevant) exhibits she filed in addition to her Amended Complaint. See
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining
that, even for pro se litigants, a court “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the
litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record”); cf. Goins v.
Russell, 4:14-cv-0865-CEJ, 2014 WL 2095336, at *2 (E.D. Mo. May 20, 2014) (“All
claims in an action must be included in one, centralized complaint form, as neither the court
nor defendants wish to search through supplemental pleadings in order to piece together
plaintiff’s claims.”).
Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed all of Plaintiff’s documentation and
supplements, 2 and the Court still cannot glean Plaintiff’s race, religion, national origin,
color, disability, or allegedly disabling medical condition. The Court only knows that she
was born in 1976 and infers that she is a woman. More importantly, the Court has no
information regarding any allegedly discriminatory conduct on the part of Defendant. Nor
can the Court confidently determine whether Plaintiff has received a right-to-sue letter
from the EEOC. See Martin v. Mt. St. Mary’s Univ. Online, 620 F. App’x 661, 663 (10th

2

As of this writing, there are 264 pages of documents in the file despite this action still being in the
pre-service stage. That is an abnormally large amount.

5

Cir. 2015) (concluding the district court had discretion to dismiss plaintiff’s action when
she failed to comply with its order requiring her to cure her failure to attach the right-tosue letter); Burnett v. City of Jacksonville, 376 F. App’x 905, 907 (11th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and affording her an
opportunity to re-file it to cure defect of failure to show she was issued a right-to-sue letter
prior to filing her action).
The Amended Complaint is devoid of factual allegations that state a claim for relief
under federal or state law. Instead, Plaintiff seems to have checked nearly every box on
the form without any supporting information whatsoever. 3 Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 makes this action subject to dismissal. See Micklus
v. Greer, 705 F.2d 314, 317 n.3 (8th Cir. 1983); see also Cody v. Loen, 468 F. App’x 644,
645 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (stating that a pro se litigant is not excused from Rule 8,
“which requires a short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will enter herewith an Order of Dismissal,
which will dismiss this action without prejudice.
Dated this 6th day of March 2025.

MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

The Court previously admonished Plaintiff that her status as a pro se litigant does not insulate her
from sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (requiring that
the claims and other legal contentions made in filings with the Court must be “warranted by existing
law” and that factual contentions must “have evidentiary support”).

6