Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Leadec Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

July 29, 2019

ENRICO TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
LEADEC CORP., et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Enrico Taylor for leave to commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will grant the motion. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss the complaint.

         Legal Standard on Initial Review

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action is malicious if it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F.Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987), aff'd 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). These include "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Id. at 678. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. This is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.

         The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show more than the "mere possibility of misconduct." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The Court must review the factual allegations in the complaint "to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Id. at 681. When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiffs proffered conclusion is the most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 680-82.

         Pro se complaints are to be liberally construed, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), but they still must 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). The Court must weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). Federal courts are not required to "assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint." Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff states that he brings this action on behalf of himself and his mother who previously worked for Leadec Corporation. Plaintiff claims that defendant Leadeac, wrongfully terminated his mother "based upon her FMLA protected status but also extortionally [sic] threatened plaintiff during pre-litigation."

         Plaintiff claims that after his mother was terminated from Leadec he went to the company and "informed the defendant's" attorney, Megan Glowacki, that his mother was suffering from a blood clot and could not afford medication to treat the clot after her termination and loss of insurance. Plaintiff claims he utilized his "constitutional rights" to tell defendant Glowacki that he was "pre-litigating" the issue with Leadec and hold the corporate officers responsible for terminating his mother in violation of the FMLA, and Glowacki threatened to call the police on plaintiff.

         Plaintiff states that he stopped "pre-litigating" because he feared the police being called on him as a result of Glowacki's threats. Thus, Leadec was able to stop plaintiff from holding the corporate officers responsible for terminating plaintiffs mother.

         Plaintiff request $1, 000, 000 in damages for "intentionally inflicting emotional distress damages on the plaintiff who fought to save his mother's life that was wrongfully terminated" by a Human Resource Representative plaintiff believes acted in bad faith.[1]

         Discussion

         On the front of plaintiffs complaint form he asserts that he is bringing claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and "extortion". As noted supra, plaintiff may only bring claims on behalf of himself. Neither of the aforementioned claims establish a violation of a federally protected right. Therefore, plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.