Brown v. Defense Commissary Agency et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Shannon Brown. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (nm)
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
To the Honorable Chief United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia:
This Report and Recommendation and Order concerns Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis [#1] and the Court’s review of the pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
This case was automatically referred to the undersigned upon filing for disposition of Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
The undersigned has authority to enter this
recommendation under Section 1915(e) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and authority to
enter this Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, proposed Complaint, and More Definite
Statement, the undersigned will grant Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and order service of
Plaintiff’s Complaint on her employer1 but will also recommend that Defendant Reda Moxley be
dismissed from this lawsuit under Section 1915(e).
The undersigned construes Plaintiff’s claims asserted against Defendant Defense Commissary
Agency as against the Secretary of the Department of Defense. See infra.
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 7
All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United
States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350, as well as
an administrative fee.2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). When faced with a request to proceed IFP,
courts must examine the financial condition of the applicant to determine whether the payment of
fees would cause an undue financial hardship. Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir.
1988). The district court exercises discretion in determining whether to extend the privilege of
IFP status to plaintiffs who are unable to pay filing fees. Wickerham v. Waterman, No. SA-14CA-766-XR, 2014 WL 5469816, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2014) (citing Startti v. United States,
415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969)). In doing so, the Court must examine the demand on
plaintiff’s financial resources, including whether her expenses are discretionary or mandatory.
Prows, 842 F.2d at 140. Although one need not be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of
IFP status, an application to proceed IFP is only sufficient if it indicates that the plaintiff truly
cannot, because of poverty, afford to pay for the costs of litigation and still provide for herself
and her dependents. Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP indicates that she has monthly expenses in the amount
of approximately $1,015. Yet Plaintiff does not identify any source of income, whether gifts or
unemployment benefits or disability payments, in her motion. Nor does Plaintiff provide the
Court with her employment status. Plaintiff indicates that the balance in her bank account is zero
and that she has no asserts or debts.
The administrative fee, which is currently $50, is waived for plaintiffs who are granted IFP
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 7
Based on this information, the undersigned determined that Plaintiff would likely qualify
for IFP status but that additional information was needed to confirm her entitlement to proceed
without paying court costs. In an Order dated April 14, 2022 [#3], the undersigned ordered
Plaintiff to supplement her IFP motion with an additional affidavit describing the amount of any
monthly income she receives (including unemployment benefits). The undersigned warned
Plaintiff that if she failed to provide the Court with the requested supplementation, her motion to
proceed IFP would be denied and she would be required to pay the filing fee to proceed with this
case. The deadline for Plaintiff to file the ordered supplementation was April 27, 2022.
On May 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplement to her IFP motion [#4]. Instead of filing an
affidavit as ordered, Plaintiff submitted her 2021 W2 and paycheck stubs reflecting her wages
during 2022. This supplementation establishes that Plaintiff is employed by the Department of
Defense and received $17,786.38 in compensation in 2021. Plaintiff’s paycheck stubs from 2022
indicate that she is still employed and is receiving approximately $580 to $680 every other week.
Although the Court did not receive this information by the ordered deadline for supplementation,
the undersigned has considered Plaintiff’s W2 and paycheck stubs in evaluating her motion to
proceed IFP. Plaintiff’s financial information demonstrates that she does not have sufficient
monthly resources available to pay the filing fee, and the undersigned will grant the motion to
Pursuant to the Court’s October 8, 2019 Standing Order, the undersigned has also
reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed Complaint for frivolousness.
Plaintiff sues the Defense
Commissary Agency (her employer) and Reda Moxley under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 for sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that she is an
African American and she suffered harassment and retaliation in April 2019, May 2019, May
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 7
2020, and January 2021.
Plaintiff contends this harassment and retaliation are still being
committed by Defendants. Attached to her Complaint are records from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding her discrimination complaint filed on March 22,
2021. These documents describe the incidents underlying this suit in more detail.
The EEOC decisions attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint indicate that Plaintiff worked as a
Sales Store Checker at the Defense Commissary Agency’s commissary in Fort Sam Houston,
Texas. Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint alleged that on December 23, 2019, Reda Moxley, the
Supervisory Store Associate at the commissary, complimented and hit Plaintiff’s buttocks.
(EEOC Decision [#1-1], at 9–10.) Additionally, Plaintiff complained that on April 21, 2020,
Aretha Queen, Store Director, issued Plaintiff a “No Contact Order” and reassigned her to the
Randolph Air Force Base Commissary. (Id.) The EEOC dismissed the complaint as untimely
because Plaintiff failed to contact the EEO Office within 45 days of the most recent incident.
(Id.) Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, arguing that her delay in contacting the EEOC was due to
fear, intimidation, and complications of reporting. (Id. at 12–15.) The EEOC determined this
reason was insufficient justification for failure to timely initiate contact with an EEO counselor.
(Id.) Plaintiff requested reconsideration, and the EEOC affirmed its original decision. (Id. at 21–
Plaintiff timely filed this lawsuit within 90 days of the date of the EEOC’s final
administrative decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed Complaint and the EEOC documents attached
thereto, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has asserted at least one non-frivolous claim against
her employer, Defendant Defense Commissary Agency, although it may be time-barred.
However, as explained in the EEOC’s decision on reconsideration informing Plaintiff of her right
to sue, the correct Defendant is not the Defense Commissary Agency but the official agency head
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 7
of the government agency at issue. (EEOC Op. [#1-1], at 22.) In this case, that is Lloyd J.
Austin, III, in his Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Defense. The Court
therefore construes Plaintiff’s claims against the Defense Commissary Agency as against the
Department of Defense and finds that the Department of Defense should be served with this
lawsuit. Nothing in this Order prevents the Department of Defense from asserting that the claims
are time-barred or any other defense.
However, Plaintiff’s Complaint should not be served on Reda Moxley. Title VII claims
of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation may only proceed against employers, not supervisors
or other employees. See Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 652 (5th Cir. 1994) (only
employers, not individuals acting in their individual capacity who do not otherwise meet the
definition of “employers,” can be liable under Title VII).
Thus, the undersigned also
recommends that Reda Moxley be dismissed from this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
II. Orders and Recommendation
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pro se Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [#1] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [#1-1] shall be filed by the
Clerk without prepayment of fees, costs or the giving of security therefore, and the Clerk shall,
until further Order of this Court, waive the collection of any other fees or costs from Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order,
Plaintiff shall submit to the Clerk’s Office a fully completed United States Marshal Service Form
285, including fully complete addresses, for Lloyd J. Austin, III, in his Official Capacity as the
Secretary of the Department of Defense, and the United States Marshal’s Service shall serve the
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 6 of 7
Department of Defense with a copy of the Complaint and a copy of this order by certified mail,
return receipt requested.
It is further RECOMMENDED that Reda Moxley be DISMISSED from this lawsuit.
III. Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this report and recommendation on
all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as
a “filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy to those not registered by certified
mail, return receipt requested. Written objections to this report and recommendation must be
filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of same, unless this time period is
modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The party shall file
the objections with the Clerk of Court and serve the objections on all other parties. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendations to which
objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider
frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party’s failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party
from a de novo determination by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985);
Acuña v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to file
timely written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained
in this report and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain
error, from attacking on appeal the un-objected-to proposed factual findings and legal
Case 5:22-cv-00349-OLG Document 5 Filed 05/10/22 Page 7 of 7
conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED this 10th day of May, 2022.
ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?