Ronquillo v. Leprino Foods Company et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Filing No. 6 ), fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, et al.,
CASE NO. 8:12CV170
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On June 29, 2012, the court
conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that Plaintiff failed to set forth
a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Filing No. 6.)
Specifically, the court stated:
Here, Plaintiff does not allege that she is a member of a protected class, or
that she was meeting the legitimate expectations of her employer. As such,
Plaintiff has failed to set forth a prima facie case of discrimination under Title
VII. In addition, Plaintiff has not filed a copy of her EEOC charge or her
right-to-sue notice. Thus, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s
claim is timely. On the court’s own motion, the court will permit Plaintiff 30
days in which to (1) amend her Complaint to allege a prima facie case of
discrimination under Title VII, and (2) file a copy of her EEOC charge and
right-to-sue notice with the court.
(Id. at CM/ECF p. 6.) In light of these pleading deficiencies, the court gave Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend her Complaint.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 26, 2012. (Filing No. 7 at CM/ECF pp.
Once again, Plaintiff failed to allege that she was meeting the legitimate
expectations of her employer, or that circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of
discrimination. Indeed, there are no allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (id. at
CM/ECF pp. 1-6), or in her Charges of Discrimination filed with the United States Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (id. at CM/ECF pp. 11-14), that her employer’s
decision to terminate her was based on her sex or national origin. Rather, Plaintiff alleges
that her supervisor witnessed an argument between Plaintiff and another female employee,
Plaintiff’s supervisor immediately informed Plaintiff that she would not “work here for long,”
and Plaintiff was contacted the next morning and asked not to return to work. (Id. at
CM/ECF pp. 2-3.)
After careful review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the court finds that Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009), (“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.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice
because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Filing No. 6), fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order and the court’s June 29, 2012, Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 10th day of September, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the court.
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?