United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, District Judge.
On March 10, 2014, pro se plaintiff Lakaram Das ("plaintiff') filed a complaint in this Court pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"), as codified, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, against his former employer, Duane Reade, which was assigned docket number 14-cv-1717 ("the first action"). On March 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a second complaint against Duane Reade and another defendant, Ramanan Acharrya ("Acharrya"),  which was assigned docket number 14-cv-2059 ("the second action"). Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis in the first action.
Since plaintiff's financial status, as set forth in his declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, qualifies him to commence these actions without prepayment of the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a)(1), his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, for the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's first and second actions are consolidated for all purposes; plaintiff's federal discrimination claims are dismissed in their entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim for relief; and any state law claims are dismissed in their entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
A. The First Action
The complaint in the first action alleges that Duane Reade violated Title VII and the ADEA by terminating his employment and subjecting him to sexual harassment based upon his race, which he designates as West Indian; his color, which he designates as "brown;" his religion, which he designates as "Arya san mage [sic];' his national origin, which he designates as "Guyana;" and his age. (Complaint in the first action ["First Compl."], ¶ 7). However, plaintiff did not complete, inter alia, the section of the complaint asking for a description of the facts of the case. (See >First Compl. ¶ 8).
B. The Second Action
The complaint in the second action does not indicate, inter alia: (1) the basis for this Court's jurisdiction, i.e., whether jurisdiction is based upon this Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); (2) any federal law allegedly violated by Duane Reade or Acharrya (collectively, "defendants"); or (3) the states of the parties' citizenship. Plaintiff only alleges: (1) that the events giving rise to his claim occurred at the "Duane Reade Warehouse[, ] 4702 5th Street[, ] Long Island City[, ] NY[;]" (2) that "all info by labor Department[;]" and (3) that he is seeking "money for compensation because of pain and suffering." (Complaint in the second action ["Second Compl."], ¶¶ III and V). However, plaintiff annexed to the complaint in the second action the following statement of his claim against defendants:
saw him on 4/23/13
All [m]y coworkers did the same thing. All [a]llegations were made. I want the video [c]amera and names.
I Lakeram Das, used to work for Duane Reade as a delivery helper. While stocking merchandise, my co-worker stepped behind me as I was bending down and grabbed my privates. When I complained to Lou and other supervisors, they did not do anything to help the situation. On a second occasion, I was working in the warehouse. People were attemting [sic] to walk across the warehouse, so I stopped my machine to let them pass. At this point, the same man as the first incident, a man named Ramanan Acharrya, he attempted to grab my privates again, and I ran away. When I complained to the supervisor, Ramanan lied and said I attempted to run him over, and I was fired. When I asked to view video of the incident, I was denied.
On June 24th, I was singing at a Religious gathering. Ramanan approached me again and attempted to grab me, and I decided I ...