United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. Cogan, U.S.D.J.
brings this pro se action, asserting federal claims
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and
related claims under the New York State and New York City
Human Rights Laws. Plaintiff's request to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is
granted. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff is ordered
to file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the
date of this Memorandum Decision and Order, failing which
this case will be dismissed.
complaint provides scant factual allegations in support of
her claim of discrimination based on her race, sex, and
color. She simply asserts that during her “employment
at Kings County Hospital, [she] was discriminated against and
treated unfairly.” Plaintiff alleges that on July 23,
2017, she received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
However, she indicates that she is unable to locate the
letter, and will submit the letter at a later date. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall
dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is
satisfied that the action “(i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” An action is
“frivolous” when either: (1) “the
‘factual contentions are clearly baseless, ' such
as when allegations are the product of delusion or
fantasy;” or (2) “the claim is ‘based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.'”
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434,
437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citation omitted). At the
pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the
truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual
allegations” in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal
Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010)
(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). A
complaint must, however, plead sufficient facts to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007).
axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less
stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and
the Court is required to read the plaintiff's pro
se complaint liberally and interpret it raising the
strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89 (2007). However, even a pro se complaint
must allege “‘enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'” Fowlkes
v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir.
2015) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to allow the
defendants to have a fair understanding of what she is
complaining about and to enable the defendants to determine
whether there is a possible legal basis for recovery.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 imposes the requirement that the plaintiff's
pleadings “give the defendant fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds on which it rests.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A court may dismiss a
complaint that is “so confused, ambiguous, vague or
otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is
well disguised.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d
40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
alleges Title VII violations, but, as previously noted, her
complaint is completely devoid of any facts in support of her
discrimination claim. Title VII prohibits an employer from
discriminating against any individual with respect to
“compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's race, color,
religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2(a)(1). A plaintiff asserting a Title VII
discrimination claim must allege facts showing that
“(1) the employer took adverse action against him and
(2) his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a
motivating factor in the employment decision, ” which
can be shown “by alleging facts that directly show
discrimination or facts that indirectly show discrimination
by giving rise to a plausible inference of
discrimination.” Vega v. Hempstead Union School
Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2015); Jones v.
Target Corp., No. 15 CV 4672, 2016 WL 50779, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016). Here, the factual basis of
plaintiff's Title VII complaint is unclear. She fails to
plead any facts in support of her claim that defendants
discriminated against her because of her race, color or sex.
at the pleading stage a plaintiff is not required to prove
discrimination, she must plausibly allege a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Vega, 801 F.3d at 86-87. Even
under the most liberal construction of plaintiff's
allegations, she provides no facts that could possibly
connect any adverse employment action to a protected status.
See Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 310 (2d
Cir. 2015) (an employment discrimination complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face); Ruston v. Town Bd. of
Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2010)
(“Under Iqbal, factual allegations must be
sufficient to support necessary legal conclusions, ”
and must “plausibly suggest an entitlement to
plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days leave to file an
amended complaint. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593
(2d Cir. 2000). If plaintiff has a basis for a claim of
employment discrimination, she should provide facts in
support of such claim. Plaintiff is directed that her amended
complaint must comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and it must “plead enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Little john, 795
F.3d at 310. If available, plaintiff should include a copy of
the charge of discrimination that she filed with the EEOC
along with a copy of the Notice of Right to Sue Letter.
Clerk of Court shall include a form complaint for employment
discrimination. The amended complaint must be captioned as an
“Amended Complaint” and bear the same docket
number as assigned to this Order. No summons shall issue at
this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for 30
days or until further order of the Court. If plaintiff elects
not to file an amended complaint, or fails to do so in a
timely manner, the action will be dismissed. The Court
certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal would not be taken in ...