United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
Standard on Initial Review
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).
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ...