Laguerre v. Grenadier Realty Corp.

Filing 4

DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, she is grant ed 30 days leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will completely replace the original Complaint, must be captioned "Amended Complaint," and shall bear the same docket number as this Order. All further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. The Clerk of Court is directed to forward an employment discrimination form complaint to Plaintiff with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or the amended complaint d oes not comply with this Order, a judgment shall enter dismissing this action. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 8/21/2014. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RACHELLE LAGUERRE,

DECISION AND ORDER
14-CV -4904 (WFK)

Plaintiff,
-againstGRENADIER REALTY CORP.,
Defendant.

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Rachelle Laguerre brings the instant pro se Complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 ("Title VII"). Plaintiffs request
to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted. For the reasons stated
below, the Complaint is dismissed and Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff submits an employment discrimination form Complaint in which she brings
claims for termination of employment and retaliation against her former employer, Grenadier
Realty Corporation. Dkt. 1 ("Compl.") at 3. Plaintiff checks off race on the form Complaint to
indicate the basis of her alleged discrimination, but provides no additional description. Id.
Plaintiff states that she was never properly trained by her former employer, which resulted in her
making "lots of error in my daily performance." Id. at 4. She was later terminated from her
position. Id. at 3-4.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an informa 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

1

understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal
basis for recovery." Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth, 941F.2d119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991);

see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that Rule 8 requires that the plaintiffs pleading
"give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.")
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Although Plaintiff seeks to bring a Title VII claim, she fails to plead factual allegations
sufficient to support a claim for relief. To establish a Title VII employment discrimination claim
based on race, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) [s]he belonged to a protected class; (2) [s]he
was qualified for the position [s]he held; (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment action; and
(4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference
of discriminatory intent." Brown v. City ofSyracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting

Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir. 2008)). Even under the most liberal
interpretation of Plaintiff's allegations, she has not presented any facts that connect her
termination to her membership in a protected class. See also Cabey v. ATRIA Senior Living, 13CV-3612, 2014 WL 794279, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2014) (Matsumoto, J.) (dismissing
employment discrimination claim because pro se plaintiff did not link adverse employment
action taken against him to his protected class status). Without such a basic connection, and
without any other facts that may lead to the reasonable inference of racial discrimination,
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See Mohawk v.

William Floyd Sch. Dist., 13-CV-2518, 2014 WL 838162 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2014) (Seybert, J.)
(dismissing Title VII employment discrimination claim because plaintiff failed to raise any facts
besides his own subjective belief that termination was racially motivated).

3

CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In light
of Plaintiffs pro se status, she is granted thirty (30) days leave to file an amended complaint. See

Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2000) (vacating dismissal of action to allow prose
plaintiff chance to amend complaint). The amended complaint must include a short, plain
statement of facts sufficient to support a plausible claim that Plaintiffs employer discriminated
against her in violation of Title VII. If available, Plaintiff should attach a copy of the charge of
discrimination she filed with the EEOC or the New York State Division of Human Rights.
Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will completely replace the original
Complaint, must be captioned "Amended Complaint," and shall bear the same docket number as
this Order. All further proceedings shall be stayed for thirty (30) days. The Clerk of Court is
directed to forward an employment discrimination form complaint to Plaintiff with this Order.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or the amended complaint does not comply with
this Order, a judgment shall enter dismissing this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 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/ Judge William F. Kuntz, II
ILLIAM F. K
, II
United States District J tlge

Dated: August 21, 2014
Brooklyn, New York

4