United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff
Varfee Fofana for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon
review of the motion and the financial information submitted
in support, the Court finds that plaintiff's motion
should be granted. Additionally, plaintiff will be directed
to file an amended complaint.
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief,
which is more than a “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). “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 upon judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679. The court must “accept as true the
facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber,
820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also
Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73
(8th Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept
factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required
to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A
“liberal construction” means that if the essence
of an allegation is discernible, the district court should
construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits
his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787
(8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints
are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim
for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon,
623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th
Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to
“assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint”). In addition, affording a pro se complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
has filed a pro se employment discrimination complaint
against defendant the Union Station Hotel. The complaint is
on a Court-provided form. Plaintiff has checked the box
indicating that he is bringing his lawsuit pursuant to the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621,
he has brought this action under the ADEA, he alleges in his
complaint that he was discriminated against by his employer
on the basis of his race (African-American), religion
(unknown), national origin (unknown) and gender. In the body
of his complaint, plaintiff also alleges that he was
“retaliated against due to being a whistleblower and
exposing Human Resources Director (Staci Simpson) devious
racial biases and inconsistencies when it relates to
disciplinary actions and hiring practices.
it appears that plaintiff filed his complaint in this Court
within ninety (90) days of receipt of his Right to Sue from
the EEOC, his claims in this lawsuit do not match the claims
outlined in his Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC.
Charge of Discrimination, plaintiff marked the boxes for race
and national origin discrimination. He also asserted in the
body of his complaint that he believed he had been terminated
from his position as Loss Prevention Supervisor at the St.
Louis Union Station Hotel due to race and national origin
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
Plaintiff did not claim discrimination on the basis of age
under the ADEA, nor did he claim gender discrimination,
religious discrimination or retaliation.
plaintiff's claims in court must be like or reasonably
related to the claims outlined in his administrative charge
or they will be subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. See, e.g., Duncan v. Delta
Consolidated Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir.
2004). Thus, the Court will allow plaintiff thirty (30) days
to amend his complaint on a court-form in order to properly
set forth allegations that reflect those that are like those
set forth in his Charge of Discrimination filed with the
EEOC. Plaintiff's failure to set forth his claims in a
timely manner will result in a dismissal of the claims in
this lawsuit due to his failure to properly exhaust his
plaintiff amends his complaint on a court-form, he should set
forth, in separately numbered paragraphs the factual
allegations supporting each separate claim against defendant.
For example, plaintiff shall articulate his race and national
origin claims separately, after clearly marking the box for
claims brought under Title VII on the first page of the
complaint form. Additionally, plaintiff needs to carefully
articulate the adverse action he believes that was taken as a
result of the discriminatory conduct he received in a
separate paragraph as well.
Clerk of Court will be directed to provide plaintiff with an
employment discrimination complaint form. Plaintiff will be
given thirty days in which to file his amended complaint.
Upon receipt of the amended ...