Tinsley v. Town of Brookhaven

Filing 13

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 9) is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND her Complaint in accordance with this Order. Any Amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 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. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 3/8/2016. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
MEREDITH TINSELY,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
14-CV-7277(JS)(ARL)

-againstTOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, DEPT. OF
PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendant.
-----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Meredith M. Tinsley, Pro Se
44 South Howells Point Road
Bellport, NY 11713
For Defendants:

David M. Cohen, Esq.
Cooper, Sapir & Cohen, P.C.
560 Broadhollow Road, Suite 210
Melville, NY 11747

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Meredith M. Tinsley (“Plaintiff”) commenced
this action on December 10, 2014, against the Town of Brookhaven
(“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant discriminated against her in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Defendant’s

motion

to

dismiss.

Pending before the Court is
(Docket

Entry

following reasons, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

9.)

For

the

BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff filed a form Complaint in this action and
checked the boxes indicating that Defendants discriminated against
her based upon her race, age, color, gender, and national origin,
and because of a disability.

On the page containing the check

marks, she wrote “failure to provide training while other officers
were given [the] same training--retaliation against my parents[’]
business.”

(Compl. at 3.)

In the space provided to detail

relevant facts about the case, Plaintiff merely wrote “see attached
sheets.”

(Compl. at 4.)

Attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint is:

(1) a right to sue letter issued by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; (2) two letters from the New York State
Division of Human Rights; (3) a letter dated October 31, 2013 from
a union discussing an allegation that Plaintiff’s employer did not
allow her to wear shorts at work, despite the fact that she has
Lyme’s disease; (4) a letter from Plaintiff to Defendant’s Law
Office discussing scheduling issues Plaintiff experienced at work,
and a dispute between Plaintiff and “Sgt. Ed Birtch”; (5) a letter
from the New York State Department of Labor regarding Plaintiff’s
unemployment insurance; (6) a memo from the Town of Brookhaven

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and are
assumed true for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order.
1

2

Department of Public Safety regarding “Bang-Ins”; and (7) several
other documents that the Court cannot readily identify.
DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court

applies a “plausibility standard,” which is guided by “[t]wo
working principles.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.

Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); Harris v. Mills, 572
F.3d 66, 71–72 (2d Cir. 2009).

First, although the Court must

accept all allegations as true, this “tenet” is “inapplicable to
legal conclusions;” thus, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50;

Harris, 572 F.3d at 72.

Second, only complaints that state a

“plausible claim for relief” can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.

Determining

whether a complaint does so is “a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
and common sense.”

Id.; Harris, 572 F.3d at 72.

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court is confined
to “the allegations contained within the four corners of [the]
complaint.”

Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F. 3d 67,

71 (2d Cir. 1998).

However, this limitation has been interpreted

broadly to include any document attached to the complaint, any
3

statements

or

documents

incorporated

in

the

complaint

by

reference, any document on which the complaint heavily relies, and
anything of which judicial notice may be taken.

See Chambers v.

Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152–53 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations
omitted); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.
1991).
II.

Application
Plaintiff fails to state a plausible cause of action in

her Complaint.

The Complaint does not contain any facts that

provide notice of the conduct at issue in this lawsuit.

Moreover,

the Court will not guess at the subject matter of this case based
upon the documents attached to the Complaint.

Therefore, this

case must be DISMISSED.
III.

Leave to Amend
Given the Second Circuit’s guidance that a district

court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without granting leave
to amend at least once “when a liberal reading of the complaint
gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” Chavis
v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010), Plaintiff is GRANTED
LEAVE TO AMEND her Complaint in accordance with this Order.

Any

Amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the
date of this Order, shall be titled AAmended Complaint,@ and shall
bear the same docket number as this Order, No. 14-CV-7277(JS)(ARL).
Plaintiff is cautioned that an Amended Complaint supercedes the
4

original

Complaint.

Therefore,

all

claims

and

allegations

Plaintiff wishes to pursue should be included in the Amended
Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss
(Docket Entry 9) is GRANTED.

However, Plaintiff is GRANTED LEAVE

TO AMEND her Complaint in accordance with this Order.

Any Amended

Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of
this Order, shall be titled AAmended Complaint,@ and shall bear the
same docket number as this Order.
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.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-

45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of
this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

March _8_ , 2015
Central Islip, New York

5