Williams v. New York City Department of Education

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The action, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Any state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3 ) that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case. C/M. Forwarded for judgment. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 3/12/2015. (Chee, Alvin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)(

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

JAMEL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

-against15 CV 0420 (WFK)(LB)
CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Jamel Williams, appearing prose, filed this action against defendant City of New
York Department of Education alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). (Dkt. 1). By Memorandum and Order ("Order") dated
February 6, 2015, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to file an
amended complaint within 30 days. (Dkt. 4). On March 4, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. (Dkt. 5).
However, the amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies noted by the Court. Although
plaintiff deleted his retaliation claim, see Am. Compl. at 3, he failed to allege facts to support his
claim that his former employer discriminated against him based on his race and color. Plaintiff's
statement of claim remains the same as in the original complaint. Plaintiff includes additional
unmarked exhibits that were not included in the original complaint, but he does not describe their
relevance or show how these documents support his claim. Although the Court is required to
liberally construe a prose litigant's pleadings, it is not required to "re-write it." Geldzahler v. N. Y.
Med. College, 663 F.Supp.2d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Peck, M.J.) (quoting 2 Moore's Federal
Practice§ 12.34[1J[b], at 12-61 (internal quotation marks omitted)). In any event, a review of all
the unmarked exhibits attached to the amended complaint do not support plaintiff's claim that he

experienced an adverse employment action based on his race and/or color.
Rather, plaintiff maintains that he was improperly terminated based on false accusations of
the use of corporal punishment on a student and the use of his cellular phone during class.
Even if plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to support a Title VII claim of race or color
1

discrimination, he does not address the timeliness of this action as required by the Court's Order.
In New York, a plaintiff must file his discrimination charge with the EEOC or a state agency within
300 days of the alleged discrimination before filing a Title VII action in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(e)(l); Lore v. City of Syracuse. 670 F.3d 127, 169 (2d Cir. 2012). Plaintiff's termination

occurred on November 19, 2007, but he did not file a discrimination charge until April 17, 2014, see
Am. Compl. at 4, more than 300 days after the alleged discrimination occurred.
Accordingly, the action, filed informa pauperis, is dismissed for failure to state a claim. 28
U.S. C. § 1915(e )(2)(B). Any state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of 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. 43 8, 444-45 ( 1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
defendant and close this case.

/s/ WFK

SO ORDERED.

ILLIAM F. KUNT
United States District Judge

I
1

The only mention of race is on two unmarked exhibits, neither of which support a plausible
inference that defendant terminated plaintiff based on his race and/or color. See Unmarked Exhibits:
"Letter to Katherine Rodi, Director of Office Employee Relations ("Race isn't an issue I taught would
have brought me here; however racism exist weather one cares to believe so or not.") and "Description of
Discrimination" wherein plaintiff alleges: (i) "First off the discrimination faced me from the start
racialally [sic], (ii) the system of education doesnt [sic] want any black males with related experiences to
prosper as a scholor [sic], and (iii) Ms. Larech witnessed the principal tell me that because I'm black like
the students I should act like them .... " Am. Comp I. at pp. 10, 26-27.

2

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March /J- , 2015

3