Orellana v. Reiss Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Plaintiff's claims against the Inidvidual Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 4/10/2014. (c/m to pro se) (Lee, Tiffeny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
JORGE ORELLANA,

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

-against14-CV-1913 (NGG) (LB)

REISS WHOLESALE HARDWARE CO., INC,
JEFF MATTHEWS, ARIEL RODRIGUEZ,
CARLETON YOUNGE, PAUL MENDOUZA, and
QUECI HENRY,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
On March 24, 20 I4, pro se Plaintiff Jorge Orellana initiated this action against
Defendants Reiss Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. ("Reiss Hardware"), Jeff Matthews, Ariel
Rodriguez, Carleton Younge, Paul Mendouza, and Queci Henry (the "Individual Defendants")
alleging violations ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of I964. (Compl. (Dkt. 1).) Plaintiff also
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma paperis in conjunction with the Complaint. (Dkt. 2)
For the reasons set forth below, (I) Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § I9I5(a) is GRANTED, and (2) Plaintiffs claims against the Individual Defendants
are DISMISSED with prejudice.
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § I9I5(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis
action where it is satisfied that the action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief." An action is "frivolous" when either (I) "the 'factual contentions are clearly
baseless,' such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy," or (2) "the claim is
'based on an indisputably meritless legal theory."' Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141

F.3d 434,437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted). Section 1915 "provide[s] an efficient
means by which a court can screen for and dismiss legally insufficient claims." Abbas v. Dixon,
480 F.3d 636,639 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004)).

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race and/or national

origin on or about August 26, 2010, when he was terminated by Reiss Hardware after he
complained to his supervisors, Defendants Jeff Matthews and Ariel Rodriguez, that he had been
threatened and called "a stupid idiot immigrant" by Defendants Carleton Younge, Paul Mendoza,
and Quesi Henry, his coworkers. (Compl. at 4, ~ 8.) Plaintiff asserts Title VII claims against his
former employer, Reiss Hardware, as well as the Individual Defendants. However, the Second
Circuit has clearly held that "individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII." Sassaman
v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307,314-16 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d
127, 169 (2d Cir. 2012); Pietri v. N.Y.S. Office of Court Admin., 936 F. Supp. 2d 120, 132-33
(E.D.N.Y. 2013). As such, Plaintiffs Title VII claims against the Individual Defendants are
"indisputably meritless" and must be dismissed.

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Jeff Matthews, Ariel

Rodriguez, Carleton Younge, Paul Medouza, and Queci Henry are DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is GRANTED.

2

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis
NICHOLAS-G. -GARAUFIS\
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April !.E_, 2014

3