United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
QUINTIN J. RAY, Plaintiff,
HEALTH CONSULTANTS INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS 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(a).
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. However, plaintiff will be required to file
an amended complaint, in addition to a copy of his right to
sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"), and his charge of discrimination, within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order.
brings this action asserting claims for
"harassment" and retaliation. Named as the
defendant in this action is plaintiffs former employer,
Health Consultants, Inc., a gas line locator, doing business
in Howton, Texas. Plaintiffs complaint does not state the law
under which he is bringing his claims, and the Court will not
surmise a claim when one has not been articulated.
complaint, plaintiff asserts that he was hired by defendant
on February 26, 2018. He claims he was "released on the
field on or around the first Monday in April 2018." In
two type-written pages in his complaint, he asserts that he
was a good employee between April and June of 2018, although
he admits that two of his supervisors asserted that he should
have produced "more tickets."
allows that in May 31, 2018, one of his supervisors put him
on a Performance Improvement Program ("PIP") and
gave him one week to complete 23 tickets a day, or he would
be terminated. However, plaintiff states that he told his
Field Service Manager David Hood of the situation and was
advised that he would be in town on or around the second week
of June 2018. Plaintiff claims that after coming in town and
evaluating the situation, Hood had plaintiffs project
manager's remove the PIP and he advised plaintiff that
there was nothing to be concerned with.
claims that after his transfer to his new supervisor, his
ticket count went up, however, on July 2, 2018, he was
informed by his crew leader there was damage on a ticket that
plaintiff had worked on and that he had "read the ticket
wrong." Plaintiff states that he was suspended three
days without pay, but after reviewing the investigation
report he noticed that the excavator had violated Missouri
Law in performing the excavation. Plaintiff states his crew
leader failed to respond to his assertions.
claims that he attempted to speak to Hood and Human Resources
about the issue but they refused to investigate the matter.
Plaintiff asserts that he was retaliated against by his
project manager on July 12 and on July 31 in retaliation
against him. Plaintiff claims that he was terminated on
August 13, 2018 for lack of production although he had never
been sent home for lack of production or other work-related
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).
noted above, plaintiff has failed to state the federal
statute under which he is bringing this action, although he
states he is asserting "harassment and retaliation
claims." However, he has not indicated whether he is
part of a protected class, such that his claims fall under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq. For this reason, the Court will have
plaintiff amend his complaint on a court-provided form for
filing employment discrimination complaints. In his amended
complaint, plaintiff must set forth exactly what statute he
is bringing his claims under. He must also carefully fill out
the "Statement of Claims," asserting how he
believes his claims against his former employer are impacted
by his protected status under Title VII.
initiate a claim under Title VII a party must timely file a
charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receive a right to
sue letter." Stuart v. General Motors Corp.,
217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000). If plaintiff has received
an EEOC right to sue letter, he must submit a copy of it so
the Court can ascertain the timeliness of his federal
employment claims. See 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(1) (to maintain a Title VII claim, an aggrieved
employee is required to file suit within ninety (90) days
after receipt of a notice of right to sue). Accordingly, the
Court will order plaintiff to amend his complaint and
supplement the record by submitting a copy of his EEOC right
to sue letter, and a copy of his charge of discrimination,
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
the Court will deny plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs allegations; ...