Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01276/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

WESTERN DMSION 

CALVIN MAGSBY PLAINTIFF 

BAKER ENGINEERING DEFENDANT 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Pending is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. In response to the Motion, Plaintiff2 acting 

pro se, requested permission to amend his Complaint to add Defendant Jackson Excavating & 

Leasing Company, Inc, to add a prayer for relief, and to include the correct date that he received 

his Right to Sue letter fiom the EEOC. The Court granted PlainWs request to amend his 

Complaint. However, Plaintiff fled his Amended Complaint without adding a prayer for relief 

or the correct date on which he received his Right to Sue letter. 

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that PlaintWs Complaint should be 

dismissed under Rule 12@)(6) for failure to name the correct legal entity as a defendant. 

Plaintiff has cured this defect by naming Jackson Excavating & Leasing Co., Inc. in his Amended 

Complaint Defendant also argued that Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 

12@)(6) for failure to include a specsc prayer for relief in his Complaint. In his Response to the 

Motion, Plaintiff explained that he is seeking "all of the relief available under the Civil Rights 

Statute including but not limited to reinstatement, back pay, fiont pay and other emoluments of 

employment." Plaintiff f failed to include this prayer for relief in his Amended Complaint. 

Fiy, Defendant argued that PlainWs Complaint should be dismissed because PlaintifThad 

not filed his Complaint within ninety days of receipt of his Right to Sue letter. Plaintiff 

responded that he had included the wrong receipt date in his Complaint. He stated that his Right 

Case 4:04-cv-01276-JMM Document 16 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 2
to Sue letter was mailed on July 30,2004 and received on August 3,2004. Therefore, Plaintiff 

filed his Complaint within ninety days of his receipf of the Right to Sue letter. Plaintiff failed, 

however, to include this date in his Amended Complaint. 

Because the Court must hold a pro se plaintiffs pleadings "to less merit standards 

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and because it appears that Defendant's arguments are 

without merit, the Court kds it necessary to incorporate Plaintiffs Response to the Defendant's 

Motion to Dismiss into his Amended Complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, *520 

(U.S. 1972). After including Plaintiffs Response as part of his Amended Complaint, the Court 

finds that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 

In conclusion, the Clerk is directed to attach Plaintips Response to Defendant's Motion 

to Dismiss (Docket # 12) to his Amended Complaint (Docket # 15). Defendant's Motion to 

Dismiss (Docket # 7) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED tbis 1 day of July 2005. 

wes M. Moody u 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:04-cv-01276-JMM Document 16 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2