United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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. Also
before the Court is plaintiff's motion to amend her
complaint. Upon consideration of the financial information
provided with the application, the Court finds that the
applicant is financially unable to pay any portion of the
filing fee. Therefore, plaintiff will be granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will also grant
plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint. However,
plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and
brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., for
alleged race discrimination, as well as hostile work
environment/harassment. Named as defendants in this action
are: Leslie Tolliver; Terri S. Knight; Felicia Miller; Sean
Nichols and Albert Sander. Plaintiff attached a right to sue
letter to her complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) dated August 23, 2019.
states that she has been employed by the St. Louis Public
Schools since November of 2016. She asserts that she was
subjected to harassment at one particular school and when she
reported the harassment she was moved to another school in
August of 2017. She claims that the harassment stopped for a
period of time but then resumed in September of 2019 with
another individual. She asserts that she was physically
assaulted and reported the assault to Human Resources but
nothing was done. Plaintiff alleges that she was suspended
from her position.
seeks monetary damages in this action.
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).
VII provides a remedy only against an “employer.”
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has squarely held that
“supervisors 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.
Accordingly, the Court will order plaintiff to amend her
complaint, on a court form, within thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order so that she may name her
“employer” as a defendant in this action.
the Court will grant plaintiff's motion to amend her
complaint to the extent she is attempting to support her
original complaint with exhibits. However, an amended
complaint supersedes an original complaint in all relevant
aspects. Thus, if plaintiff wishes to refer to an exhibit in
her amended complaint, she must attach the exhibit to her
amended pleading. The Court must warn plaintiff, however,
that it does not accept discovery in the Court record unless
it is used in support of a motion for summary judgment or in
reference to a motion to compel or motion for judgment on the
the Court will deny plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel at this time. 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 and the factual allegations in the
case at hand, the Court finds that the facts and legal issues
involved are not so complicated that the appointment of
counsel is warranted at this time.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
for leave to proceed in forma ...