Rhymes v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. et al
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Ms. Rhymes is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ), and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Ms. Rhymes's Motion for Representation by an Attorney (Doc. No. 3 ) is denied as moot. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Sara Lioi on 4/15/2011. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGIA M. RHYMES,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., et
al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:10cv2860
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Georgia M. Rhymes filed this in forma pauperis action against
her former employer Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P, Stephen Dobransky and Shawna Conrad.1 Ms.
Rhymes is seeking $18,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages for lost wages and
emotional distress.
Background
Ms. Rhymes was employed by Wal-Mart for almost 12 years as a door greeter.
She claims that on AJanuary 20th@ she glanced at a piece of paper a customer handed to her.2 At
the time, Mr. Dobransky and Ms. Conrad were on their lunch breaks and were observing her.
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Rhymes was summoned to the office without explanation. When she
1
The Court presumes both individual defendants are employees of Wal-Mart.
2
Ms. Rhymes does not disclose in what year she was fired.
1
arrived she was advised that her employment was terminated. According to Ms. Rhymes, the
decision was planned because Ms. Rhymes states she had not seen her name on the work
schedule for the upcoming week.
A copy of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.)
ADismissal and Notice of Right to Sue,@ dated September 21, 2010, is attached to Ms. Rhymes=s
complaint. There is no copy of an E.E.O.C. charge attached, or any indication of the claim for
which she is seeking relief. Ms. Rhymes states she had to fight for her Aunemployment@ after
she was fired. The damages she seeks represent the wages she would have earned for the
balance of the year.
Standard of Review
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), a 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). A plaintiff's complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' "Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __U.S.
__, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)).
Failure to State a Claim
A complaint "has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
2
alleged." Iqbal at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The Court must accept all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but need not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched
as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265,
286 (1986)). While a complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations," it must provide
"more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at
1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual
enhancement." Id. at 557.
Ms. Rhymes does not allege any facts which would support a federal claim
against Wal-Mart. While she may believe she was discharged without cause, that does not state
a claim for which federal relief is warranted. To the extent she believes she was wrongfully
denied unemployment benefits, and she has exhausted her administrative remedies, such claims
are best appealed to an Ohio court of common pleas. See OHIO REVISED CODE ' 4141.28.2.
District courts are not required to conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them or to construct full blown claims from sentence fragments. Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). To do so would "require . . . [the courts] to explore
exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, . . . [and] would . . . transform the district
court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the
strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party." Id. Even liberally construed,
the complaint does not set forth a colorable claim for federal relief.
3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Rhymes is granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2), and this action is dismissed under section 1915(e). Ms. Rhymes=s Motion
for Representation by an Attorney (Doc. No. 3) is denied as moot. The Court 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.
Dated: April 15, 2011
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?