United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon the application of plaintiff
for leave to commence this action without payment of the
required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a copy of his
CJA 23 Financial Affidavit; therefore the Court is unable to
determine whether plaintiff is financially unable to pay the
filing fee. Plaintiff will be required to file a CJA 23
Financial Affidavit prior to this Court ruling on his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis.
because plaintiff has filed his complaint on prisoner civil
rights complaint form, plaintiff will be required to amend
his complaint on a form complaint for filing employment
discrimination complaints. Plaintiff will also be required to
provide the Court with a copy of his notice of right to sue
from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”), within thirty (30) days of the date of
this Memorandum and Order.
brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., for alleged
religious discrimination for his “Moslem”
religion. Plaintiff also alleges that he was
subjected to disability discrimination in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101
et seq., as well as the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Named
as defendants in this action are: Better Family Life; Dwight
Unknown (Maintenance Supervisor); Jihad Khayyam; Alice Cage;
and Jackie Bland.
attached a copy of his charge of discrimination to his
complaint made out to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights
("MCHR"), dated November 30, 2017. However,
plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a copy of his
notice of right to sue from the EEOC, which would give this
Court jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims.
plaintiff's complaint states that he is bringing his
claims pursuant to Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA, nowhere
in the complaint does it specifically state that he is
bringing a claim for discrimination or retaliation under the
Missouri Human Rights Act. Rather, plaintiff has merely
attached a copy of his charge of discrimination from the
MCHR. The Court will not surmise a claim when one has not
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to conduct an initial review of the case and to
dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). A case can be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) if the statute of limitations has run. See, e.g.,
Myers v. Vogal, 960 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir. 1992).
plaintiff filed his complaint with the MCHR, the complaint
was automatically dual-filed with the EEOC. As such, if
plaintiff has received an EEOC right to sue letter, he must
submit a copy of it to this Court. If he has not yet received
an EEOC right to sue letter, this Court would not have
jurisdiction over plaintiff's EEOC claims or any MHRA
claim, because federal jurisdiction over a plaintiff's
state MHRA claim depends upon the Court's jurisdiction
over a federal claim in the same action.
statute of limitations is now running on plaintiff's
state MHRA claim, should he wish to file one. A plaintiff
should always be aware of the necessity of filing an
employment discrimination claim within the time period
provided by statute and in the appropriate state or federal
court. In the absence of an accompanying federal claim, a
plaintiff may file an MHRA claim in the appropriate state
court within the time period set forth in a MCHR notice of
right to sue letter.
to the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert federal
claims, pursuant to Title VII, against the individual
defendants in this matter, he should be aware that such
claims are subject to dismissal. Title VII provides a remedy
only against an Aemployer." The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has squarely held that Asupervisors may not be held
individually liable under Title VII." Bonomolo-Hagen
v. Clay Central-Everly Community School District, 121
F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Spencer v. Ripley
County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir. 1997);
see Bales v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 143 F.3d 1103,
1111 (8th Cir. 1998). As a result, plaintiff's claims
against the individual defendants in this action fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Title
VII, the ADA or the ADEA.
the Court will order plaintiff to amend his complaint on an
employment court-form and supplement the record by submitting
a copy of his EEOC right to sue letter, if he has received
one, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff will also be required to provide the Court with a
CJA Financial Affidavit within thirty (30) days of this
Memorandum and Order. ...