Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00464/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00464-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HENRY J. REMBERT, JR., )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00464-KD-N

)

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, )

Postmaster General USPS, )

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court sua sponte on review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) 

filed pro se by Plaintiff Henry J. Rembert, Jr. (“Rembert”). Where, as here (see Doc. 

12), a plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of fees, or in forma pauperis, a 

district court must dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, among other 

reasons, that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii).

Rembert’s pro se Complaint (Doc. 1), liberally construed,1 asserts various 

causes of action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. The form on which Rembert has filed his 

Complaint provides a section for Rembert to “briefly state the FACTS of this case,” 

noting that he “must set forth separate factual allegations in separately numbered 

 1 See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (“A document filed pro se

is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held 

to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (citation and 

quotations omitted)).

Case 1:15-cv-00464-KD-N Document 17 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 5
2

paragraphs.” (See Doc. 1 at 4). The form further provides that “additional pages 

may be added to state the relevant facts if necessary” but that “[a]bsent 

extraordinary circumstances, no more than two (2) additional pages should be 

attached.” (Id.). In the space provided for his statement of facts, however, 

Rembert simply writes “see attached documents.” Said “attached documents” 

consist of over 150 pages of various documents which appear to be from various 

stages of administrative review of Rembert’s claims.

Neither the Defendant nor the Court is required to sift through this mound of 

paperwork in order to divine the factual basis of Rembert’s claims. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” (emphasis 

added). A defendant needs preciseness and clarity in a plaintiff’s allegations to 

“discern what the plaintiff is claiming and to frame a responsive pleading.” 

Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th 

Cir. 1996). It is not the Court’s or a defendant’s responsibility to find a claim from 

among plaintiff’s allegations. Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). 

Rather, “sufficient detail must be given so that the defendant, and the Court, can 

obtain a fair idea of what the plaintiff is complaining, and can see that there is some 

legal basis for recovery.” L.S.T. v. Crow, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th Cir. 1995).

To withstand Rule 12(b)(6) [dismissal for failure to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted ]and satisfy Rule 8(a), a plaintiff must 

plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” so as to “nudge[ ][its] claims across the line from conceivable to 

plausible.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 

Case 1:15-cv-00464-KD-N Document 17 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 5
3

1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.

Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted). “This necessarily requires that a 

plaintiff include factual allegations for each essential element of his or 

her claim.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1254 

(11th Cir. 2012). Thus, minimum pleading standards “require [ ] 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. As the 

Eleventh Circuit has explained, Twombly/Iqbal principles require that 

a complaint's allegations be “enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1380 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, 

the complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, ... but must 

give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.” Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Cochran v. Southern Co., Civil Action No. 14-0569-WS-N, 2015 WL 3508018, at *1 

(S.D. Ala. June 3, 2015).2

Rembert’s Complaint (Doc. 1) does not satisfy Rule 8(a) and is due to be 

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii). However, in this Circuit, “[w]here a 

more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at 

least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the 

action with prejudice.” Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991) (per 

curiam), overruled in part by, Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 

541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (overruling Bank only as to plaintiffs represented 

by counsel). Accordingly, on October 21, 2015, the undersigned entered an Order 

 2 “The standards governing dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) apply to § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).” Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).

Case 1:15-cv-00464-KD-N Document 17 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 5
4

explaining the above deficiencies and granting Rembert leave to file an amended 

complaint curing those deficiencies no later than November 11, 2015. (See Doc. 13). 

On Rembert’s motion (Doc. 14), the undersigned extended the deadline to file his 

amended complaint to December 11, 2015 (see Doc. 15). To date, Rembert has not 

filed an amended complaint as ordered, nor has he requested any additional 

extension of time. Rembert was expressly cautioned that his failure to timely file 

an amended complaint as ordered would “result in entry by the undersigned under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) of a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) or, alternatively, for failure to prosecute 

and obey the Court’s orders.” (Doc. 13 at 4; Doc. 15 at 1 – 2).

Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

72(b)(1), and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this 

action be DISMISSED prior to service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) for 

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, 

file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, 

“[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 

Case 1:15-cv-00464-KD-N Document 17 Filed 12/22/15 Page 4 of 5
5

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the 

time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the 

absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain 

error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which 

objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing 

before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of December 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00464-KD-N Document 17 Filed 12/22/15 Page 5 of 5