Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diamond v. Hose O Weaver and Son

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

November 8, 2019

COREY L. DIAMOND, Plaintiff,
v.
HOSE O WEAVER AND SON, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          P. BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This action is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint (Doc. 1) and motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2). This matter has been referred to the undersigned for pretrial disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and General Local Rule 72(a)(2)(S). Because Diamond has requested leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees (Doc. 2), this Court has the obligation to undertake a review of his complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute instructs courts to dismiss any action when it is determined that an in forma pauperis applicant's suit is “frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Upon consideration of the pleadings, it is recommended that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, prior to service of process, because Plaintiff has failed to allege that he exhausted his administrative remedies before the EEOC, see id.[1]

         BRIEF BACKGROUND

         On October 28, 2019, the pro se Plaintiff filed a form complaint for a civil case wherein he seeks damages and requests that this Court “call a civil right[s] group to investigate” purported discrimination by a putative former employer, Hose O Weaver and Son. (See Doc. 1, 1, 3 & 4). Plaintiff suggests that his supervisor (“Cowboy”) would send all “white driver[s] out” but keep minority drivers “in.” (See Id. at 4). Diamond does not identify the basis for federal court jurisdiction; that is, he does specifically checkmark the box for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction (id. at 3). Thereafter, however, he does identify the basis for federal-question jurisdiction as “discrimination” (id.) and then goes on to fill out a portion of the diversity jurisdiction “section, ” identifying himself as a citizen of Alabama (id. at 3; see also Id. at 4).[2]

         DISCUSSION

         Upon liberally construing Plaintiff's complaint, as must be done, [3] and because Diamond seeks damages and requests that this Court “call a civil right[s] group to investigate” the Defendant's discrimination, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim against Hose O. Weaver & Sons pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

         “'Before instituting a Title VII action in federal district court, a private plaintiff must file an [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)] complaint against the discriminating party and receive statutory notice from the EEOC of [] h[is] right to sue the respondent named in the charge.'” Burnett v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 376 Fed.Appx. 905, 906 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2010) (quoting Forehand v. Florida State Hosp. at Chattahoochee, 89 F.3d 1562, 1567 (11th Cir. 1996)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 932, 131 S.Ct. 330, 178 L.Ed.2d 215 (2010). As the Eleventh Circuit in Burnett went on to explain:

“[T]he purpose of this exhaustion requirement ‘is that the [EEOC] should have the first opportunity to investigate the alleged discriminatory practices to permit it to perform its role in obtaining voluntary compliance and promoting conciliation efforts.'” Gregory v. Ga. Dep't of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004) []. Finally, “a plaintiff must generally allege in [his] complaint that ‘all conditions precedent to the institution of the lawsuit have been fulfilled.'” Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1010 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(c)).

Id. (emphasis supplied).

         Here, Diamond nowhere alleges that he filed a complaint with the EEOC or that he was issued a right-to-sue letter prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. (See Doc. 1). Moreover, Plaintiff certainly did not attach any documents to his complaint or allege any facts suggesting that he had exhausted his remedies with the EEOC. Instead, Plaintiff has given every indication that he never approached the EEOC regarding any alleged discrimination by Hose O. Weaver & Sons and asked that administrative body to investigate the Defendant, as should be the case in the first instance, Burnett, supra, inasmuch as he has specifically asked this Court to “call a civil right[s] group to investigate” the Defendant (see Doc. 1, at 4).

         Because Diamond has failed to allege that he exhausted his administrative remedies before the EEOC, he has improperly instituted this action against Hose O. Weaver & Sons in this Court. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice, prior to service, in accordance with § 1915(e)(2)B)(ii).[4]

         CONCLUSION

         Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, prior to service of process, because Diamond has failed to allege in his complaint that he exhausted his administrative remedies before the EEOC as to the Defendant's alleged discrimination. See Burnett v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, 376 Fed.Appx. 905, 906-907 (11th Cir. Apr. 27, 2010) (upholding a district court's dismissal without prejudice of a litigant's civil action alleging gender discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII for failure to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies where the district court afforded litigant the opportunity to re-file to cure any defects).

         NOTICE OF RIGHT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.