Carter v. Thiam et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion Request for Attorney Representation; granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff directed to file particularized complaint by 8/31/18. Th e clerk is directed to review this case and, if appropriate, to refer the matter for consideration by the courts pro bono panel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 8/14/2018. (A certified copy of this Order was sent via US mail to Danielle A. Carter, P. O. Box 40194, Raleigh, NC 27604.) (Collins, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:18-CV-89-FL
DANIELLE A. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASTOU THIAM and AFRICAN HAIR
BRAIDING GALLERY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
This pro se case is before the court on the application [DE #1] by Plaintiff
Danielle A. Carter to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)
and for frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the matter having been
referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Louise W. Flanagan. For the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is allowed and
Plaintiff is ORDERED to particularize her complaint.
IFP MOTION
The standard for determining in forma pauperis status is whether “one cannot
because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide
himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Based on the information contained in
Plaintiff’s affidavit, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated appropriate
evidence of inability to pay the required court costs. Thus, Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis is allowed.
DISCUSSION
I.
Background
Plaintiff alleges claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and facts which may form the basis
of state-law torts against her former employer, a hair salon in Raleigh. (Prop. Compl.
[DE #1-1] at 2–5.) Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 5, 2018, and received a
right-to-sue letter on January 15, 2018. (Prop. Compl. at 5; EEOC Right-to-Sue Letter
[DE #1-2].) Plaintiff timely filed this action on March 2, 2018.
II.
Standard for Frivolity Review
Notwithstanding the determination that Plaintiff is entitled to in forma
pauperis status, the court is required to dismiss all or part of an action found to be
frivolous or malicious, which fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or
which seeks money damages from a defendant immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); Michau v. Charleston County, 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006). A case
is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Pro se complaints are entitled to a more liberal treatment than
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722–23 (4th Cir.
1989). However, the court is not required to accept a pro se plaintiff’s contentions as
true. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The court is permitted to “pierce
2
the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual
contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to give a
“short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8. The statement must give a defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). “A plaintiff must offer more detail . . . than the bald statement that he has a
valid claim of some type against the defendant.” Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405
(4th Cir. 2001); see also White, 886 F.2d at 723 (affirming district court’s dismissal of
plaintiff’s suit as frivolous where plaintiff’s complaint “failed to contain any factual
allegations tending to support his bare assertion”). While the court must read the
complaint carefully to determine if the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support
his claims, White, 886 F.2d at 724, the court is not required to act as the pro se
plaintiff’s advocate or to parse through volumes of documents or discursive
arguments in an attempt to discern the plaintiff’s unexpressed intent, Williams v.
Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 805 (4th Cir. 2013).
III.
Analysis
A review of Plaintiff’s proposed complaint raises the threshold issue of
whether she has sued an “employer” under Title VII and the ADA.1 Both Title VII
This issue is not undertaken as a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction but as
to whether Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516 (2006) (Title
VII’s employee threshold limit is not jurisdictional); Reynolds v. American Nat’l Red
Cross, 701 F.3d 143, 155 (4th Cir. 2012) (applying Arbaugh to the ADA’s employee
threshold limit).
1
3
and the ADA only apply to “employers,” where that means a person or entity engaged
in an industry affecting interstate commerce who “has fifteen or more employees for
each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or
preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A)
(ADA). Here, Plaintiff has alleged Defendants employ between eight and fifty people.
(Prop. Compl. at 2.) However, the EEOC dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint because the
agency determined Defendants did not employ the requisite number of people. (EEOC
Right-to-Sue Letter at 1.) Plaintiff is hereby ordered to particularize this aspect of
her Title VII and ADA claims.
Moreover, it is unclear from the proposed complaint whether Plaintiff has
named a person or entity capable of suit under Title VII and the ADA. Individual
persons, including supervisors, are not liable under Title VII and the ADA unless
they qualify as an “employer.” Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 471–72 (4th
Cir. 1999). While Plaintiff has named Defendant Thiam as “owner” of Defendant
African Hair Braiding Gallery, it is not clear whether Plaintiff alleges Defendant
Thiam is the sole proprietor of African Hair Braiding Gallery or whether African Hair
Braiding Gallery is a separate legal entity capable of suit. Due to this ambiguity,
Plaintiff is ordered to particularize this aspect of her Title VII and ADA claims. See
Woodbury v. Victory Van Lines, 286 F. Supp. 3d 685, 694 (D. Md. 2017) (dismissing
Title VII and ADA claims against an individual because he was not the sole proprietor
of a defendant corporation).
4
Lastly, Plaintiff is reminded that merely stating “‘a few conclusory legal terms
does not insulate a complaint from dismissal . . . when the facts alleged in the
complaint’ do not support the legal conclusion.” Trulock, 275 F.3d at 405 n.9 (quoting
Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 577 (4th Cir. 2001)). For example,
Plaintiff has failed to allege any supporting facts pertaining to her ADA “regarded
as” claim (Prop. Compl. at 5) tending to show that Defendants “subjected [her] to an
action the ADA prohibits because of an actual or perceived impairment.” Howard v.
College of the Albemarle, 262 F. Supp. 3d 322, 334 (E.D.N.C. 2017) (summarizing
updated standard under ADA for “regarded as” claims). In addition to the particular
matters discussed above, Plaintiff is hereby given an opportunity to particularize any
other aspects of her proposed complaint so as to put any potential defendants on fair
notice as to the nature of her claims.
IV.
Request for Counsel
After filing her IFP application and proposed complaint, Plaintiff submitted a
request for assistance in obtaining an attorney to represent her. (Request Attorney
Representation [DE #5].)
There is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, and courts should
exercise their discretion to request an attorney to represent a pro se civil litigant only
in exceptional cases. Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). The existence
of exceptional circumstances “hinges on [the] characteristics of the claim and the
litigant.” Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other
grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). The
5
facts of this case and Plaintiff’s abilities do not present such exceptional
circumstances. Accordingly, the court denies any request by Plaintiff for appointed
counsel.
Nevertheless, the court maintains a list of attorneys who have indicated a
willingness to consider providing pro bono representation in certain categories of civil
cases (“pro bono panel”). Review by the pro bono panel does not guarantee that
counsel will be secured. Because of the number of pro se cases and the shortage of
volunteer attorneys, submission of a case to the pro bono panel frequently results in
a declination of representation. In accordance with the court’s routine practice, the
Clerk is directed to review this case in order to determine whether it falls within one
of the categories of cases appropriate for consideration by the pro bono panel.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is ALLOWED and
Plaintiff is ORDERED to PARTICULARIZE her complaint by filing with the court,
on or before August 31, 2018, a revised complaint as discussed above; and
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for assistance in obtaining counsel [DE #5] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The clerk is directed to review this case
and, if appropriate, to refer the matter for consideration by the court’s pro bono panel.
After Plaintiff has submitted her particularized complaint, the court will
conduct a frivolity review of Plaintiff's claims to determine whether any of her claims
6
should be dismissed. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file a particularized complaint
as ordered herein may result in dismissal of her claims.
This 14th day of August 2018.
_______________________________________
KIMBERLY A. SWANK
United States Magistrate Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?