Jones-McFarlane v. Jackson Hewitt
Opinion and Order. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Related doc # [1-1]) is granted. This action is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 6/2/2017. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CASE NO. 1: 17 CV 724
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
Seeking $25,000 in damages, pro se Plaintiff Tomika Jones-McFarlane has filed this
in forma pauperis action against Defendant Jackson Hewitt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The alleged factual basis for her action is that she was
“often times not able to take lunch or breaks due to the high volume of returns completed
during peak season,” was called a “Bitch” by an officer manager, was “refused an
accommodation to do [her] work more effectively and efficiently” and was not put on the
schedule and/or was terminated after being told “[w]e are just low on hours.” (Doc. No. 1 at
Although pro se pleadings generally are liberally construed and held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th
Cir. 2011), pro se plaintiffs are still required to meet basic pleading requirements and a Court
is not required to conjure allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579,
580 (6th Cir. 2001). Federal District Courts are expressly required, under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis actions and to dismiss before service any such
action that the Court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief
can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
Upon review, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed
pursuant to §1915(e)(2)(B) because, even liberally construed, it fails to set forth allegations
reasonably suggesting a plausible federal claim against the Defendant under either §1983 or
To state a claim under §1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove that she has been
deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting
“under color of state law.” See Waters v. City of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353, 359-60 (6th Cir.
2001). The Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that the Defendant is a state actor. See
Bell v. Management & Training Corp., 122 F. App’x 219, 222 (6th Cir. 2005) (private
employers are not state actors under §1983 unless their actions can be fairly attributable to the
state). Further, the Plaintiff has not alleged she suffered a deprivation of any specific right
secured by the federal Constitution.
In addition, the Plaintiff has not alleged any plausible federal claim under Title VII.
Title VII prohibits discrimination by an employer against an individual with respect to the
terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment “because of such individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(a)(1). Plaintiff does not allege facts
supporting a plausible inference that the Defendant took any adverse employment action
against her because of a characteristic protected by Title VII. Conclusory allegations of
discrimination are insufficient to state a Title VII claim. See Tucker v. Victor Gelb, Inc., 194
F.3d 1314, 1999 WL 801544 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999) (upholding summary dismissal and
holding that conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a plausible claim).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1-1) is
granted and this action is summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The
Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision
could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: June 2, 2017
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?