United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KEITH L. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the application of Keith L.
Griffin for leave to commence this action without payment of
the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Upon consideration of the financial information provided with
the application, the Court finds that the plaintiff is
financially unable to pay any portion of the fee. Therefore,
plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After reviewing plaintiffs
complaint, however, this action will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead
more than "legal conclusions" and
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of
misconduct." Id. at 679. "A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
has filed this case on a court-approved form for employment
discrimination. As to the nature of the discrimination,
plaintiff checks that he is bringing the case under the
American with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., for
employment discrimination on the basis of disability.
body of his complaint, plaintiff states that he attended
defendant Vatterott College from March 1988 through October
3, 1988. He states that he graduated on October 10, 1988.
Although his factual allegations are unclear, plaintiff
states that in 1996, his residence was broken into and his
"pocket handbook of all the graduating people from PBS
from the year I graduated to earlier years from 1988"
was stolen. Possibly related, he claims his police officer
handbook is in the library of the District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, and that he placed it there.
Finally, plaintiff appears to allege his identity has been
outset, the Court notes that even pro se litigants are
obligated to plead specific facts and proper jurisdiction and
must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff
has failed to do so in this case. See United States v.
Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994);
Boswell v. Honorable Governor of Texas, 138
F.Supp.2d 782, 785 (N.D. Tex. 2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)
(complaint should contain "short and plain
statement" of claims); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1) (each claim
shall be "simple, concise, and direct");
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) (parties are to separate their claims into
paragraphs, "each limited ... to a single set of
construing plaintiffs complaint, he has not alleged any
employment discrimination based on the ADA. He has not
alleged any employment at Vatterott, any discrimination by
Vatterott, or any disability under the ADA. Although he
checks the box on the form complaint that the nature of his
case is "failure to hire me, " "termination of
my employment, " and "other conduct, " he
makes no allegations that he applied for a position at
Vatterott and was not hired, nor that he was employed at
Vatterott and fired. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, and the Court will dismiss his
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
the Court will dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs action does not
appear to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States, and thus, federal question jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable. Nor has
plaintiff alleged any diversity of citizenship between
himself and defendant Vatterott or any amount in controversy.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall not
issue process on the complaint because the complaint is
subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and lack of
jurisdiction. See ...