Dorsey, Jr v. Kelly Services

Filing 3

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2 ). This matter is dismissed. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 7/14/16. (K,C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DARYL DORSEY, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY SERVICES,
Defendant.

I.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:16 CV 1577
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Background
Pro se Plaintiff Daryl Dorsey, Jr., filed this action against Kelly Services. Plaintiff’s

Complaint contains only one sentence as a statement of his claim: “On the above date October
27, 2015 my employment was terminated after (3) three yrs. for a felony on my record over 18
yrs ago.” He indicates he is bringing this action under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), “or” the Genetic Information Discrimination Act (“GINA”). He seeks monetary
damages.
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). That
Application is granted.

II.

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), the Court is required to

dismiss an in forma pauperis 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 claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual
allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative
level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more
than “an unadorned, the Defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).

III.

Analysis
Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21

-2-

(1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991), the Court is not required to conjure
up unpled allegations. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir.
2008). The Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s claims are and
the grounds upon which they rest. Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations plausibly
suggesting the Defendant terminated his employment on the basis of his race, gender, national
origin, religion, disability, or genetic information. Instead, he alleges he was terminated because
his employer discovered he had a prior felony conviction. At best, his claims are stated solely as
legal conclusions, unsupported by factual allegations. The Complaint does not satisfy the
minimum pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8.

IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is

granted, and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 14, 2016

/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is
not taken in good faith.
-3-