St. John v. Fresh Market et al

Filing 5

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/15/15. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, dismisses Defendant EECO and certifies that an appeal from its dismissal could not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process on The Fresh Market. (Related Docs. 2 , 4 ) (M,G)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

LARS ST, JOHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FRESH MARKET, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1172
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiff pro se Lars St. John brings this in forma pauperis Title VII action against
Defendants The Fresh Market and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
He alleges in the Complaint that he was subjected to harassment and discrimination during his
employment at The Fresh Market based on his race and sex, and that his employment was
subsequently terminated.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court is
required to dismiss an action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,

99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996).
While Plaintiff’s claims against The Fresh Market may have arguable merit, the same
cannot be said regarding his claims against the EEOC, which is not liable for its handling of
Plaintiff’s administrative charge. See Scheerer v. Rose State College, 950 F.2d 661, 662-63
(10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1205 (1992); McCottrell v. EEOC, 726 F.2d 350, 351 (7th
Cir.1984); Ward v. EEOC, 719 F.2d 311, 312-14 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 953
(1984).
Based on the foregoing, Defendant EEOC is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e), and the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from its
dismissal could not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted, and the Clerk's Office is directed to forward the appropriate documents to the U.S.
Marshal for service of process on The Fresh Market.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 15, 2015

2