CARY v. PREMIER PAN COMPANY
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 9/14/15. (bdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN E. CARY,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
V.
PREMIER PAN COMPANY,
Civil Action No. 2: 15-cv-0 1177
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge
The Plaintiff Mr. Cary has filed for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status as part of his effort
to assert a claim against the Defendant for discrimination made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-5, et. seq. His allegations are thin, to put it charitably.
His Complaint recites a summary of the purposes of Title VII, and seems to aver that he seeks to
file it as a precautionary measure due to what he seems to perceive as some failure in the
EEOC's completion of the administrative processes mandated by Title VII. He does not allege
that any of those procedures, including the mandatory issuance by the EEOC of a "right to sue"
letter, has occurred. On top of that, he does not assert the basis for the unlawful discrimination
(race? sex? national origin? religion? color?), nor that any adverse employment action has
occurred. In sum, there is really no claim asserted, no matter how generously the Court would
consider the IFP/pro se filing.
This Court has examined similar situations before.
In Detar v. United States
Government, No. 13-1499, 2014 WL 517715 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2014), the Court reviewed its
obligations in terms of passing on the IFP application, and then in considering the proffered
Complaint. Where, as here, the pro se, IFP Complaint fails to even remotely assert a plausible
claim for relief in federal court, even when considered under a more liberal pro se pleading
standard, the Court must dismiss the Complaint, but with leave to amend, unless such
amendment would be futile as a matter of law. !d. at *3; see Grayson v. Mayview State Hasp.,
293 F. 3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002).
Here, the Complaint fails to even remotely assert a federal claim, for at least the reasons
noted above, and it will therefore be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, since
it is at least possible that Mr. Cary has a federal claim that can be plausibly asserted. IFP status
will be granted, although only as to the prepayment of costs. Should it later appear to the Court
that Mr. Cary has the wherewithal to pay costs, he will be responsible for them.
An appropriate order will be entered.
Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge
Dated: September 14,2015
cc: Mr. John E. Cary
2
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?