Ngrime v. Mosaic

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff shall have 20 days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to file suit within 90 days of receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC/NEOC. The Court directs the clerk of the court to set the following pro se case management deadline in this matter: October 21, 2013: Deadline for plaintiff to show cause. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL NGRIME,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MOSAIC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:13CV194

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on July 1,
2013 (Filing No. 1).

Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (Filing No. 5).

The court now conducts an

initial review of plaintiff’s claims to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed his complaint against Mosaic, a non-

profit corporation that provides “services to individuals with
disabilities.”

(Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.)

Plaintiff resides

in Omaha, Nebraska, and is native of Cameroon, West Africa.
at CM/ECF p. 2.)

(Id.

Liberally construed, plaintiff has sued Mosaic

for discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 (“Title VII”), and the Nebraska
Fair Employment Practice Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1101 to 481126 (“NFEPA”).

Plaintiff alleges that from November 28, 2011, to May
17, 2012, he was employed by Mosaic as a direct support
associate.

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that his coworkers

“harassed, threatened and intimidated” him, and plaintiff’s
superiors “sanctioned [his coworkers’] conduct.”
p. 3.)

(Id. at CM/ECF

Plaintiff’s description of this harassing, threatening,

and intimidating behavior is very general.

He alleges his

coworkers did not like him, ignored him, talked about him, called
him names, and used profanity when communicating with him or
about him.

(Id.)

As best as the Court can tell, the only

example that plaintiff provides of his coworkers’ behavior is
that they stated he “did not work for the clients.”

(Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges that Mosaic imposed “different
and unique working conditions” on him by treating him “in a
demeaning and disparaging manner through assignments and in
verbal communication.”

(Id.)

Plaintiff’s description of these

“different and unique working conditions” is very general.

He

alleges only that he “was not informed of plans, activities and
assignments directly by his supervisors” and, when supervisors
called him, they were abrupt or refused to speak to him.

(Id.)

Plaintiff’s employment with Mosaic was terminated in
May 2012 after the Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services received an anonymous tip that plaintiff physically
-2-

abused a resident.

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 6-7.)

Mosaic did not

offer to rehire plaintiff after the Nebraska Department of Health
and Human Services determined the allegations were unfounded.
(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1, 6-7.)
Plaintiff alleges that Mosaic discriminated against him
“because of his race, color or African heritage” through
“sabotage, rumors, gossip, and silent treatment.”
p. 7.)

He seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and

punitive damages from Mosaic.
II.

(Id. at CM/ECF

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 7-8.)

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The Court is required to review in forma pauperis

complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

The Court must dismiss a complaint

or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious
claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual
allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be dismissed”
for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see
also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (“A claim
-3-

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.”).

Regardless of

whether a plaintiff is represented or is appearing pro se, the
plaintiff’s complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to
state a claim.
Cir. 1985).

See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th

However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be

construed liberally.

Burke v. North Dakota Dep’t of Corr. &

Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted).
III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
Prior to filing a suit in federal court under Title
VII, a plaintiff is required to exhaust his administrative
remedies by first seeking relief through the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or the Nebraska Equal Opportunity
Commission.

The EEOC/NEOC will then investigate the charge and

determine whether to file suit on behalf of the charging party or
make a determination of no reasonable cause.

If the EEOC/NEOC

determines that there is no reasonable cause, the agency will
then issue the charging party a right-to-sue notice.

42 U.S.C.A.

§ 2000e-5(f)(1); see also Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins.
Co., 118 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 1997).

The charging party has 90

days from the receipt of the right-to-sue notice to file a civil
-4-

complaint based on his charge.

42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

The

civil complaint may only encompass issues that are reasonably
related to the substance of charges timely brought before the
EEOC/NEOC.

Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d

218, 222 (8th Cir. 1994).
Here, plaintiff has not attached a right-to-sue letter
from the EEOC/NEOC.

However, he alleges that the EEOC/NEOC

issued a right to sue letter on March 20, 2013 (Filing No. 1 at
CM/ECF p. 4).

Plaintiff did not file suit in this matter until

July 1, 2013, which is 103 days after the right-to-sue letter was
issued.

Plaintiff does not contend that any equitable or

exceptional circumstances exist that warrant tolling of the 90day period.
On the Court’s own motion, plaintiff will be given 20
days to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his
failure to file suit within 90 days of receipt of a right-to-sue
letter from the EEOC/NEOC.

If plaintiff fails to show that

equitable or exceptional circumstances exist that warrant tolling
of the 90-day period, this matter will be dismissed without
further notice.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff shall have 20 days to show cause why

this case should not be dismissed for his failure to file suit
-5-

within 90 days of receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the
EEOC/NEOC.

If plaintiff fails to show that equitable or

exceptional circumstances exist that warrant tolling of the 90day period, this matter will be dismissed without further notice.
2.

The Court directs the clerk of the court to set

the following pro se case management deadline in this matter:
October 21, 2013:
3.

Deadline for plaintiff to show cause.

The Court reserves the right to conduct further

review of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
after plaintiff addresses the matters set forth in this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 3rd day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

* 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.

-6-