JORDAN v. STAFFING PLUS

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED. THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, PURSUANT TO 28 USC: 1915(E)(2)(B)(ii), FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE COURT'S ME MORANDUM. PLAINTIFF IS GIVEN LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. UPON THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE CLERK SHALL NOT MAKE SERVICE UNTIL SO ORDERED BY THE COURT. IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, HIS CASE MAY BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 10/3/17. 10/4/17 ENTERED AND COPY MAILED TO JORDAN. (fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DOMINIQUE JORDAN,
Relator

CIVIL ACTION

FILE

v.

OCT 113 2011

N0.17-4020

. if!l'it\1Pf 8~ 01eJik

STAFFING PLUS,
Defendant

~~-~
MEMORANDUM

'2017

RUFE,J.

Plaintiff Dominique Jordan brings this civil action against Staffing Plus, his former
employer, based on allegations of employment discrimination. He seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismiss his complaint without prejudice to him filing an amended complaint.
I.

FACTS

Plaintiff was employed by Staffing Plus until his termination on March 29, 2017. By
marking the appropriate locations on the Court's form complaint, plaintiff indicates that his
former ell)t'loyer violated Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. He also asserts claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1981. His claims against Staffing Plus are based on the following allegations:
WRONGFUL TERMINATION, STAFF PLUS wrongfully
terminated Aggrieved PARTY not based off performance but
because of false arrest, Negative News Article stemmed from
assumption. No Facts. STAFFING PLUS did not do own
(A Injury).
investigation.
Also Breach Of CONTRACT.
Unlawful Terminated aggrieved party Based off hearsay.
(Compl. ~ILE.) He seeks $300,000 in damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (Compl. ~IV.)
'J

1

8.f1Et1EO
trrCT 0~ :t1ti1
CLERK QF ODlllT

'
1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears he is

incapable of paying the fees necessary to commence this action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a
claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the
same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to

determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "[T]he plausibility paradigm
announced in Twombly applies with equal force to analyzing the adequacy of claims of
employment discrimination." Fowler v. UMPC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quotations omitted). As plaintiff is proceeding prose, the Court must construe his allegations
liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).

III.

DISCUSSION
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee based on race.

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). In general, to establish a prima facie case of employment

discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was
qualified for the position in question; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and; (4) the
adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. See
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); see also Sarullo v. U.S. Postal
Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003). Although a plaintiff need not establish a prima facie

case to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, he still must "put forth allegations that raise

2

a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Fowler,
578 F.3d at 213 (quotations omitted).
Section 1981 prohibits race-based impairment of an individual's right to make and
enforce contracts, or more specifically "the making, performance, modification, and termination
of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the
contractual relationship." See 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a),(b),(c). "Ordinarily, to establish a basis for
relief under section 1981 a plaintiff must show (1) that he belongs to a racial minority; (2) an
intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) discrimination concerning
one or more of the activities enumerated in§ 1981." Estate of Oliva ex rel. McHugh v. New
Jersey, 604 F.3d 788, 797 (3d Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
By checking the appropriate locations and by referencing 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on the
Court's form complaint, plaintiff indicated that he is raising race discrimination claims under
Title VII and§ 1981. However, plaintiff does not allege his race or provide any facts to support
his allegation that his employer's decision to terminate him was based on his race, or that any
interference with an employment contract between him and Staffing Plus occurred because of his
race. Accordingly, he has not stated a claim under the federal statutes prohibiting employment
discrimination. See Shahin v. Del. Dep 't ofTransp., 405 F. App'x 587, 588-89 (3d Cir. 2010)
(per curiam). Although the complaint does not state a claim as currently pled, the Court will
give plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in the event that he can cure the above
deficiencies. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed without prejudice to his

filing an amended complaint. An appropriate order follows.

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DOMINIQUE JORDAN,
Relator

CIVIL ACTION

v.
N0.17-4020
STAFFING PLUS,
Defendant

FILED
OCT DJ 2111

ORDER

s;JJ day o~.Septembe, 2017, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion
ozr~,

AND NOW, this

to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint, it is ORDERED that:
1.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

2.

The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum.
3.

Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the

date of this Order. Upon the filing of an amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service
until so ORDERED by the Court. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, his case may be
dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice.