United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff for
leave to commence this action without the prepayment of the
filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon
consideration of the financial information provided with the
motion, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially unable
to pay any portion of the filing fee. As a result, plaintiff
will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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.
an African-American woman, alleges her employer, Supervalu,
is discriminating against her based on her race, color, and
gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et
seq. She states that in October 2015, she
reported being assaulted by a white male employee who was
subsequently terminated. Since this time, plaintiff states
she has been being retaliated against for filing the report.
She states she has been disciplined, has had her hours cut,
and has been verbally harassed. Additionally, she has filed
union grievances regarding this conduct, and she states she
has been retaliated against for filing these grievances.
plaintiff's well-pled facts as true, and liberally
construing her allegations, the Court finds that
plaintiff's claims survive initial review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff has alleged she is a member of a
protected class, has engaged in protected activity, and has
suffered retaliation. Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the EEOC, and has received her
right-to-sue letter. Her complaint is timely filed, and her
allegations are within the scope of her EEOC Charge of
Discrimination. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to
issue process on plaintiff's complaint.
has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. There is
no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in
civil cases. Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing,
728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984). In determining whether
to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors,
including (1) whether the plaintiff has presented
non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for
relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit
from the appointment of counsel; (3) whether there is a need
to further investigate and present the facts related to the
plaintiff's allegations; and (4) whether the factual and
legal issues presented by the action are complex. See
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir.
1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.
considering these factors, the Court finds that the facts and
legal issues involved are not so complicated that the
appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. The Court
will deny plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
without prejudice to refiling as the case progresses.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to
appoint counsel will be DENIED without
prejudice. [ECF No. 4]
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of Court shall issue
process or cause process to issue upon the plaintiff's
complaint as ...