United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and for the reasons
set out below, the court WILL DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE the amended complaint for failure to state
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, §
1915(e) requires the court to dismiss the case “if the
court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dismissal under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as a
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490
(11th Cir. 1997). Under that standard, the court must dismiss
the case if the plaintiff fails to plead “a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the
grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks and
March 2018, Plaintiff Desi Washington, proceeding pro
se, filed a complaint against Defendant Rail Connection,
alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
et seq. (Doc. 1). A magistrate judge granted Mr.
Washington's request to proceed in forma
pauperis but found that his complaint was insufficient
because it failed to assert any factual allegations to
support his claims. (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge therefore
ordered Mr. Washington to replead his complaint.
(Id. at 3-4).
magistrate judge explained in detail how Mr. Washington could
amend his complaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
In the amended complaint, the plaintiff should include facts
that show why he believes his “employment was
terminated due to race” and the facts that support his
beliefs that his “employer['s] fail[ure] to promote
[him] in the course of 4 years” was because of his
race, as he alleges. Additionally, the plaintiff needs to
provide facts that illustrate how he “was treated
differently than coworkers outside [his] race” and
provide background and details as to why he believes he was
retaliated against for requesting a promotion. Essentially,
the plaintiff should tell his story, which, if believed would
support the conclusions offered.
Additionally, the plaintiff should also attach a copy of his
[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”)] Charge to the Amended Complaint.
(Id. at 3) (citations omitted) (final alteration
added). The judge further explained:
In the amended complaint, the plaintiff must clearly set
forth the facts concerning any incident about which he
complains. Specifically, he must (1) identify each defendant
he alleges participated in the violation of his rights; (2)
describe what each defendant did that amounted to a violation
of his rights; (3) state when and where the incidents
underlying the violation of his rights occurred; (4) describe
how the acts and/or omissions of each defendant resulted in
harm to him; (5) identify the nature of that harm (e.g., loss
of money, income, or property, or interference with his right
to engage in or refrain from some activity); and (6) state
the relief he seeks (e.g., compensatory and/or punitive
damages or some form of injunctive relief, including any
request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses).
Conclusory and general assertions are insufficient to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
(Id. at 4).
the case was reassigned to the undersigned, Mr. Washington
filed his amended complaint. (Doc. 18). The amended
complaint, although formatted differently, provides no new
information or facts. (Compare Docs. 1, 18). Nor did
Mr. Washington attach to the amended complaint his EEOC
charge or his notice of right to sue. The court liberally
construes a pro se litigant's allegations.
Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110
(11th Cir. 2006). But even construed liberally, the complaint
remains too conclusory to state a valid claim against Rail
Connection. And a court may not “rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading [by a pro se litigant] in order
to sustain an action.” GJR Investments, Inc. v.
Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
the court has already afforded Mr. Washington an opportunity
to amend his complaint to cure the specific deficiencies
identified by the magistrate judge, the court concludes that
dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. The court
WILL DISMISS the case WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
court will enter a separate order consistent with this