Rachel v. United Dairy Farmers

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER rejecting and reversing 4 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/2/2012. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2012: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DARRIAN RACHEL,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED DAIRY FARMERS,
Defendant.

NO. 1:12-CV-575

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s Objection (doc.
5).

For the reasons indicated herein, the Court REJECTS and

REVERSES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
This case involves Plaintiff’s allegations that, as a
customer of Defendant, she was falsely accused of stealing, which
was proven untrue after a police investigation.

Her pro se

Complaint invokes subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §
1331, that is, “a lawsuit ‘arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties

of

the

United

States’”

(doc.

3).

Attached

to

her

Complaint is a letter to Defendant in which Plaintiff indicates she
is a disabled person (Id.).
In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
noted that “[a]lthough a plaintiff’s pro se complaint must be
‘liberally construed’ and ‘held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,’ the complaint must ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the. . .claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests’ (doc. 4, citing Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007)(per curiam)).

After reviewing the Complaint, however, the

Magistrate Judge concluded it should be dismissed as frivolous
(Id.).

In arriving at such conclusion, the Magistrate Judge

surveyed a wide array of law, including rejecting the existence of
diversity jurisdiction, finding no applicable federal statutory or
constitutional provision, and no actionable equal protection claim
(Id.).

The Magistrate Judge further found no claim for relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination because the
complaint “does not identify the race of either Plaintiff or the
store employee and contains no allegations even remotely suggesting
that

[Defendant]

promoted,

endorsed

or

acquiesced

in

any

discriminatory conduct by the employee” (Id.). The Magistrate also
found no viable Section 1983 claim as there are no allegations of
action in concert with state actors, and no pendent state law
claims due to the lack of any viable federal claims (Id.).

The

Magistrate Judge essentially concluded Plaintiff’s Complaint should
be deemed frivolous, citing authority regarding actions having “no
arguable basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the
level of irrational or ‘wholly incredible’” (Id. quoting Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 32, (1992)).
Plaintiff

filed

a

late

objection

to

the

Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, essentially invoking her federal
rights against discrimination in places of public accommodation

2

(doc. 5).

Plaintiff’s objection initially fails to explicitly

identify on what basis, whether race, color, religion, or national
origin, but later appears to invoke civil rights protections for
those “born or naturalized in the United States” (Id.).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds, having the
benefit of Plaintiff’s objection, which the Magistrate Judge did
not, that it is plausible that Plaintiff is alleging she was
treated illegally due to her national origin.

As the Magistrate

Judge noted, pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards
and their complaints are liberally construed. In the Court’s view,
Defendant is on fair notice that its employee allegedly falsely
accused Plaintiff of stealing, which could be seen as a method of
harassing some one of a different national origin in a “markedly
hostile manner”.

Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d at

872 (6th Cir. 2001). Such analysis does not even include the
possibility

of

discrimination

based

on

Plaintiff’s

alleged

disability, or any pendent state law claim.
In arriving at such conclusion, the Court is not finding
that the record as it stands supports a strong case, but rather
there is enough before the Court to show that Plaintiff’s claims
merit investigation and not just dismissal.

Clearly Plaintiff

needs to amend her Complaint if she wishes to withstand a motion by
Defendant to dismiss her case.

However, taking into consideration

the liberal construction due pro se litigants, and

3

rejecting the

concept that a person falsely accused of stealing could not have
rational, credible, non-frivolous allegations based on denial of
access to public accommodation, the Court hereby REJECTS and
REVERSES the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 4).

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2012

/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

4