Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-00662/USCOURTS-alnd-2_16-cv-00662-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janie Sue Akins
Plaintiff
Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
Defendant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANIE SUE AKINS, )

)

Pro Se Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO.: 2:16-CV-662-VEH

)

JEFFERSON COUNTY )

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN )

RESOURCES, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This employment discrimination action wasfiled on April 25, 2016, by the pro

se Plaintiff, Janie Sue Akins, against the Defendant, her former employer, the

Jefferson County Department of Human Resources. (Doc. 1). The case comes before

the Court on the Defendant’s motion, filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 20). The motion also alleges that the

Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b), for failure to comply

with prior orders of this Court. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be

GRANTED.

FILED

 2017 Mar-24 PM 02:20

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 22
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 30, 2016, this Court entered the following Order:

On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff was ordered to file an Amended

Complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 4 at 1)

1

. In thatsame order, the Plaintiff

was warned that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint within the time

prescribed may result in the dismissal of all claims for want of

prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41 (b).” (Doc. 4 at 2). More than 21

days have elapsed and no Amended Complaint has been filed.

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

(Doc. 9 at 1) (emphasis in original). On July 19, 2016, this Court noted:

The Plaintiff has now filed a document entitled “Motion to Not

Reassign or Dismiss This Case.” (Doc. 10) (emphasis in original). In

that document, the Plaintiff statesthat computer problems prevented her

from receiving service of the orders entered in this case when they were

entered. She also explains that she only recently, on July 5, 2016,

received “the court documents,” but does not specify which documents

are referenced. She states that “she was not knowledgeable of [the

Court’s orders] until after the requested date.” (Doc. 10 at 1). She

requests that her case not be dismissed or reassigned, that this Court

provide future notices to her via regular mail, and that this court

reconsider its denial of appointed counsel.

The Court treats the motion as a motion to alter or amend made

pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The

motion is GRANTED to the extent that the order dismissing this case

is hereby VACATED, and this case is REINSTATED. The Plaintiff

is hereby ORDERED to file her Amended Complaint within 21 days

after the date of this Order. The failure to file an Amended

Complaint within the time prescribed may result in the dismissal of

1

 That Order was entered by Magistrate Judge Staci G. Cornelius, to whom this case was

originally assigned. 

2

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 22
all claims for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41 (b). The

Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED to send service copies off all

Orders in this case to the pro se Plaintiff by U.S. Mail. The Plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED to the extent she again seeks the appointment of

counsel and that she asks that this case not remain reassigned to the

undersigned.

(Doc. 11 at 1-2) (emphasis in original and footnote omitted). On August 9, 2016, this

Court entered an Order which stated, in pertinent part:

Instead of filing an Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff has filed a

4 page, single spaced letter, in 10-point font, which has been docketed

as an Amended Complaint. This letter does not have the case caption,

and fails to comply with the magistrate’s directive that

[t]he amended complaint must refer to the federalstatute or

statutes being invoked, comply with the FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and be suitable for

service on the defendant or defendants named therein. In

the amended complaint, the plaintiff must clearly set forth

the facts concerning any incident about which she

complains. Specifically, she must (1) identify each

defendant she alleges participated in the violation of her

rights; (2) describe what each defendant did that amounted

to a violation of her rights; (3) state when and where the

incidents underlying the violation of her rights occurred;

(4) describe how the acts and/or omissions of each

defendant resulted in harm to her; (5) identify the nature of

that harm (e.g., loss of money, income, or property, or

interference with her right to engage in or refrain from

some activity); and (6) state the relief she 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). The

3

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 22
amended complaint must include all of the plaintiff’s

claims in this action and must not refer back to the original

complaint. Only claims set forth in the amended complaint

will be considered.

(Doc. 4 at 2). Most importantly, the letter fails to give any dates so that

the Court can determine whether this action is timely filed. The letter

also fails to refer to the federal statute or statutes being invoked, so that

the Court can determine whether it has jurisdiction.

Be that as it may, the Court will allow the Plaintiff one more

opportunity to clearly, and in an organized and understandable fashion,

set out a proper Complaint. The new Complaint should be filed into the

record within 21 days after the date of this order. It must be double

spaced, in 14 point type, have a case caption identical to the one at the

beginning of this Order and otherwise comply with the requirements of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, it should have numbered

sections (with discussion) which correspond to the magistrate’s directive

in document 4. The failure to file an Amended Complaint, which

complies with these requirements, within the time prescribed, may

result in the dismissal of all claimsfor want of prosecution. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 41 (b).

To the extent that the Plaintiff’sletter could be considered another

motion for the appointment of counsel, that motion is, again, DENIED. 

(Doc. 13 at 1-3).

The Amended Complaint was due on August 30, 2016. The Plaintiff filed

nothing by the deadlines. On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed another letter

which did not comply with this Court’s previous directives. (Doc. 14). That letter will

not be considered by the Court.

On September 6, 2015, a week after the deadline for doing so, the Plaintiff filed

4

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 4 of 22
an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15). The record reflectsthat the Defendant wasfinally

served on January 30, 2017. On February 15, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss. (Doc. 20). On February 16, 2017, this Court entered an Order which

provided:

The Jefferson County Department of Human Resources has filed a

motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Rules 41(b) and 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 20). In accordance with this

Court’s Uniform Initial Order (doc. 7), entered in this case on June 29,

2016, the pro se Plaintiff may file any response to the motion no later

than March 8, 2017. The Defendant’s reply is due no later than March

20, 2017.

(Doc. 21 at 1). The Plaintiff has filed no response to the motion, and the Defendant

has filed no reply. The motion is now ripe for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Rule 41(b)

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f the

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant

may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Unless

otherwise noted, dismissal under this rule is with prejudice. Id. “A dismissal [with

prejudice] bar[s] the plaintiff from prosecuting any later lawsuit on the same claim.”

Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit has noted:

Although dismissal with prejudice is a drastic remedy, “[t]he court's

5

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 5 of 22
power to dismiss is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its

orders and insure prompt disposition of lawsuits.” Goforth v. Owens,

766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir.1985). Moreover while dismissal is an

extraordinary remedy, “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially

where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of

discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989).

Hickman v. Hickman, 563 F. App'x 742, 743 (11th Cir. 2014).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

Generally, the FederalRules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint

provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). However, to survive a motion to dismiss brought under

Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (“Twombly”).

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) (citing Twombly,

550 U.S. at 556) (“Iqbal”). That is, the complaint must include enough facts “to raise

a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation and

footnote omitted). Pleadings that contain nothing more than “a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action” do not meet Rule 8 standards, nor do pleadings

suffice that are based merely upon “labels or conclusions” or “naked assertion[s]”

6

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 6 of 22
without supporting factual allegations. Id. at 555, 557 (citation omitted). 

Once a claim has been stated adequately, however, “it may be supported by

showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 563

(citation omitted). Further, when ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must “take the

factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff.” Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir.

2008) (citing Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006)). 

Finally,

[Courts] construe pleadings filed by pro se parties liberally. Alba v.

Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir.2008). This liberal

construction, however, “does not give a court license to serve as de facto

counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order

to sustain an action.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132

F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.1998) (citations omitted), overruled on other

grounds, v. as stated in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th

Cir.2010). Moreover, pro se litigants still are required to conform to

procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th

Cir.2007).

Hickman, 563 F. App'x at 743.

III. ALLEGATIONS IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT2

2

 The Plaintiff admits that her lengthy Amended Complaint, which she refers to as a “long

novel” (doc. 15 at 9) engages in a “rambling” discussions of facts. (Doc. 15 at 6). Still, “[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.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (internal

quotations and citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court will endeavor to distill the relevant

facts from the Amended Complaint.

7

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 7 of 22
The Plaintiff’sComplaint appearsto make two claims–one for “DISABILITY”

and one for “RACISM.”

A. Disability

The Plaintiff vaguely states that her “ADHD disability was used to terminate

[her] job [and] [her] letter of accommodations request was ignored.” (Doc. 15 at 1).

She then implies, but does not specifically state, that she may have been late from

time to time because of her condition. She also states that she was pulled over by the

police which she says “appeared to be done on purpose to cause me late arrival on

days I almost made it on time.” (Doc. 15 at 2). The Amended Complaint states:

How could they get awaywith ignoring my letter of accommodationsfor

my ADHD disability; it is obvious they used it against me because all

the years I was employed there it never mattered that I was a few

minutes late everyday until I tried to get help from the EEOC.

(Doc. 15 at 2). She also alleges that

A letter of accommodations was submitted before I was terminated for

my disability to accommodate a 15 minute time frame before and after

my scheduled work hours and Director Randall Redmill ignored it. He

first stated he did not receive it but I submitted evidence; I saved a copy

of it also.

(Doc. 15 at 3). 

The Plaintiff provides no dates as to any of these alleged events. It references

no law which was allegedly violated. 

8

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 8 of 22
B. “Racism”

The Plaintiff states that “[c]oworkers were creating several malicious events

for over three years to get me out of there[.]” (Doc. 15 at 2). She then states that:

– “African American workers were not scrutinized for arriving late like [she]

was until . . . after [she] spoke up that they were discriminating and singling

[her] out.” (Doc. 15 at 2; see generally doc. 15 at 2-3);

– The first day thatshe returned to work from medical leave “they immediately

gave [her] a horrific appraisal rating.” (Doc. 15 at 3);

– She worked in a “non-diversified race work environment” in which African

Americans outnumbered Caucasians, preventing her from securing witnesses

because “they support one another even when dishonesty has been involved.”

(Doc. 15 at 3);

– “Ms. Jones[,] a supervisor[,] used to make fun of [her] disability in front of

other coworkers stating to be quiet because someone who cannot focus does

not want us making too much noise and reported [them] watching the Trey

Vann Martin case during work hours.” (Doc. 15 at 3);

– “Old food assistance applications were placed on [her] desk by African

American Coworkersthat were over a month old when they are to be processed

immediately.” (Doc. 15 at 3; see generally doc. 15 at 3-4);

9

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 9 of 22
– She was accused by “the state” of illegal conduct, when she copied the old

food assistance applications as proof of improper conduct. (Doc. 15 at 3-4);

– Shortly after making the copies she was arrested for disorderly conduct at a

casino. (Doc. 15 at 5). She feelsthat this was done “on purpose to make copies

of keys to our home or look in my car for the applications.” (Doc. 15 at 5);

– She “transferred to Birmingham and was under the impression that [she] was

going to advance from an ASAII to an ASAIII when [she] filled the previous

African American ASAIII position for the director of child abuse. Instead,

[she] was assigned double the amount of duties [as the previous African

American ASAIII] without advancement.” (Doc. 15 at 4;see generally doc. 15

at 4-5);

– “They” framed her for “copying our director's personal drive and putting it

on the shared drive.” (Doc. 15 at 4);

– She was passed over for promotion twice “except the first time our asst.

director was not a racist African American and didn't mind a white/Caucasian

assistant. [Her] luck she was killed in the tornado that came through Bluff

Park.” (Doc. 15 at 4-5);

– She was pulled over by police for speeding, and then arrested, apparently for

a DUI. (Doc. 15 at 5). She fears that this “may have had something to do with

10

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 10 of 22
trying to retrieve those applications or frame [her] for my director’s hard drive

getting put onto the shared drive.” (Doc. 15 at 6);

– Her home computer modem had at one time been password protected and

then was not. (Doc. 15 at 6);

– After the Plaintiff “was transferred to Birmingham per [her] request,

coworkers were constantly trying to get [her] in trouble.” (Doc. 15 at 6). These

included “silly accusations such as ordering free copier toner for [the]

machines when that was part of [her] job when [she] was the ASAII in

Bessemer or how [she] was falsely accused of ordering wrong supplies when

[she] didn't.” (Doc. 15 at 6). The Plaintiff did not contest these accusations.

(Doc. 15 at 6-7);

– Her mother has alcoholism. (Doc. 15 at 8, 9);

– She is being followed by unknown individuals. (Doc. 15 at 8);

– An attorney declined to represent her regarding the present case. (Doc. 15 at

7);

– Unnamed individuals are entering her house. (Doc. 15 at 8);

– Unnamed individuals are hacking into her computer. (Doc. 15 at 8);

– Unnamed individuals are listening to her phone calls. (Doc. 15 at 9);

– Her “husband’s brothers created a fake will” and that they were aided by a

11

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 11 of 22
judge and her own attorney. (Doc. 15 at 10, 11 );

– She had a cousin that lived in her home but she had to request her to leave

due to various problems. (Doc. 15 at 10);

– Her youngest son needs counseling due to the death of his father. (Doc. 15

at 11); and

– The “beginning of them seeking revenge” occurred after she contacted the

Alabama Governor and the President of the United States to help with

conditions with the DHR building in Bessemer. (Doc. 15 p 11 ).

This section of the Amended Complaint contains no dates, and fails to set out

which specific laws have allegedly been violated.

IV. ANALYSIS

Despite the fact that it was filed late, the Court will allow the most recent

Amended Complaint. However, the Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed

because the Plaintiff, again, did not comply with this Court’s orders, and because the

Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

A. Most of the Allegations in the Complaint Have Nothing To Do with

Employment Discrimination and Will Not Be Considered

The Court assumes that all of the Plaintiff’s claims are employment

discrimination claims, for which there might be jurisdiction since certain employment

12

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 12 of 22
discrimination claims arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); the AmericansWith Disabilities

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (the “ADA”); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e through §2000e-17 (“Title VII”). Many facts alleged in the

AmendedComplaint have nothing to do with employment discrimination and will not

be considered. This include, but are limited to, allegations that:

– She was pulled over by the police which she says “appeared to be done on

purpose to cause me late arrival on days I almost made it on time.” (Doc. 15 at

2);

– She worked in a “non-diversified race work environment” in which African

Americans outnumbered Caucasians, preventing her from securing witnesses

because “they support one another even when dishonestly has been involved.”

(Doc. 15 at 3)

3

;

– She was arrested for disorderly conduct at a casino. (Doc. 15 at 5);

– She was pulled over by police for speeding, and then arrested, apparently for

a DUI. (Doc. 15 at 5);

3

 There is no legal right to work in an environment which is “diverse.” And there is no

cause of action available to the Plaintiff for her co-workers allegedly refusing to assist her as a

witness.

13

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 13 of 22
– Her home computer modem had at one time been password protected and

then was not. (Doc. 15 at 6);

– Her mother has alcoholism. (Doc. 15 at 8, 9);

– She is being followed by unknown individuals. (Doc. 15 at 8);

– An attorney declined to represent her regarding the present case. (Doc. 15 at

7);

– Unnamed individuals are entering her house. (Doc. 15 at 8);

– Unnamed individuals are hacking into her computer. (Doc. 15 at 8);

– Unnamed individuals are listening to her phone calls. (Doc. 15 at 9);

– Her “husband’s brothers created a fake will” and that they were aided by a

judge and her own attorney. (Doc. 15 at 10, 11 );

– She had a cousin that lived in her home but she had to request her to leave

due to various problems. (Doc. 15 at 10);

– Her youngest son needs counseling due to the death of his father. (Doc. 15

at 11); and

– The “beginning of them seeking revenge” occurred after she contacted the

Alabama Governor and the President of the United States to help with

conditions with the DHR building in Bessemer. (Doc. 15 p 11 ).

All of the above allegations, and any other allegations notset out above, which

14

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 14 of 22
do not directly relate to the Plaintiff’s employment, will not be considered.

4 Further,

to the extent that the Plaintiff intended to show or allege some sort of conspiracy to

violate some unidentified law, those claims are not set out with enough factual detail

to make them plausible, and they will be dismissed.

The only claimsremaining to be considered are those which relate to her claim

that:

– she was fired due to her alleged disability–“ADHD” which is the commonly

used abbreviation for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;

– the Defendant ignored her request for a reasonable accommodation of her

disability;

– the Plaintiff wastreated differently than similarly situated African American

employees because African American workers were notscrutinized for arriving

late like she was;

– she received a “horrific” approval rating;

– “Ms. Jones[,] a supervisor[,] used to make fun of [her] disability in front of

other coworkers stating to be quiet because someone who cannot focus does

4

 To these extent that, in pleading these facts, the Plaintiff intended to set out other claims

which are not employment related, the Plaintiff has failed to show that this Court has jurisdiction

over them, or to even explain under what law or rule she is suing. Accordingly, any such claims

would be, and are, due to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

15

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 15 of 22
not want us making too much noise and reported [them] watching the Trey

Vann Martin case during work hours.” (Doc. 15 at 3);

– “Old food assistance applications were placed on [her] desk by African

AmericanCoworkersthat were over a month old when they are to be processed

immediately.” (Doc. 15 at 3; see generally doc. 15 at 3-4);

– She was accused by “the state” of illegal conduct, when she copied the old

food assistance applications as proof of improper conduct. (Doc. 15 at 3-4);

– She “transferred to Birmingham and was under the impression that [she] was

going to advance from an ASAII to an ASAIII when [she] filled the previous

African American ASAIII position for the director of child abuse. Instead,

[she] was assigned double the amount of duties [as the previous African

American ASAIII] without advancement.” (Doc. 15 at 4;see generally doc. 15

at 4-5);

– “They” framed her for “copying our director's personal drive and putting it

on the shared drive.” (Doc. 15 at 4); and

– She was passed over for promotion twice “except the first time our asst.

director was not a racist African American and didn't mind a white/Caucasian

assistant. [Her] luck she was killed in the tornado that came through Bluff

Park.” (Doc. 15 at 4-5). 

16

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 16 of 22
– After the Plaintiff “was transferred to Birmingham per [her] request,

coworkers were constantly trying to get [her] in trouble.” (Doc. 15 at 6). These

included “silly accusations such as ordering free copier toner for [the]

machines when that was part of [her] job when [she] was the ASAII in

Bessemer or how [she] was falsely accused of ordering wrong supplies when

I didn't.” (Doc. 15 at 6). The Plaintiff did not contest these accusations. (Doc.

15 at 6-7).

B. The Amended Complaint Is Due To Be Dismissed for Failure To

Comply With the Orders of This Court

While it is an improvement over previous filings, the Amended Complaintstill

fails to comply with all of this Court’s requirements. In particular, the Amended

Complaint does not have numbered sections (with discussion) which correspond to

the magistrate's directive in document 4. Further, the Amended Complaint fails to

give any datesso that the Court can determine whether this action is timely filed, and

fails to refer to the federal statute or statutes being invoked, so that the Court can

determine whether it has jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Plaintiff has failed to

comply with this Court’s, and the magistrate’s, previous orders regarding pleading,

and her claim is due to be dismissed with prejudice.5

5

 The Court further finds that, in light of the several opportunities given the Plaintiff to

amend, a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice.

17

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 17 of 22
C. The Amended Complaint Is Due To Be Dismiss Because It Fails To

State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted

For the same reasons the Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed under

Rule 41(b), it also is due to be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Again, the Amended

Complaint sets out no statutes, rules, or regulations which have allegedly been

violated. 

1. The Requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure Have Not Been Satisfied

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Provides:

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the

claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). As noted above, despite numerous opportunities to correct

deficiencies, the Amended Complaint fails to set out the statute or statutes pursuant

to which the Plaintiff is making a claim. Accordingly, the Court is unable to tell

whether it hasjurisdiction over thismatter. Further, the AmendedComplaint is hardly

short and plain.

18

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 18 of 22
2. Even Assuming that this Court Has Jurisdiction, the Amended

Complaint Contains No Dates

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Plaintiff is attempting to set out

claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (the

“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e through

§2000e-17 (“Title VII”), the failure to state any dates upon which any alleged acts

occurred is fatal since “[a]n allegation of time or place is material when testing the

sufficiency of a pleading.” FED. R. CIV. P. 9(f). 

This is particularly true in discrimination cases when one considers the

administrative prerequisites which must be followed prior to initiating a lawsuit. As

has been noted:

[B]oth Title VII and the ADA require a plaintiff to file a timely charge

with the EEOC as an administrative prerequisite to bringing suit.

[Houston v. Army Fleet Servs., L.L.C., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1040

(M.D. Ala. 2007) (Fuller, J.)] (“As an administrative prerequisite to

filing suit under Title VII, an employee must file a timely charge of

discrimination with the EEOC. Likewise, to assert a claim under the

ADA, an employee must comply with the same procedural requirements

to sue under Title VII, and thus, a timely EEOC charge isrequired under

the ADA as well.”) (citations omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. §

2000e–5(e)(1) (providing that a Title VII plaintiff in a non-deferralstate,

such as Alabama, must file an EEOC charge within 180 days of when an

alleged unlawful employment practice occurred); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a)

(applying the remedies and procedures of Title VII to the ADA). “[I]f a

plaintiff fails to file an EEOC charge before the 180–day limitations

period, the plaintiff'ssubsequent lawsuit is barred andmust be dismissed

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” Thomas v. Ala. Council

19

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 19 of 22
on Human Rels., Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d 1105, 1115 (M.D.Ala.2003)

(Fuller, J.) (citing Brewer v. Alabama, 111 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1204

(M.D.Ala.2000)); accord Pijnenburg v. W. Ga. Health Sys., Inc., 255

F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir.2001) (“It issettled law that in order to obtain

judicial consideration of a [Title VII] claim, a plaintiff must first file an

administrative charge with the EEOC within 180 days after the alleged

unlawful employment practice occurred.”).

Freeman v. Koch Foods of Alabama, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1275–76 (M.D. Ala.

2011). Further, “[a] plaintiff's judicial complaint is limited by the scope of the EEOC

investigation [to that] which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of

discrimination.” Mulhall v. Advance Sec., Inc., 19 F.3d 586, 589 n. 8 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Without dates, it is impossible to know whether any of the conduct in the

Amended Complaint took place before or after a charge was filed with the EEOC.

The Court also notes that the Plaintiff has also alleged that the Defendant retaliated

against her. Without dates, it is unclear what the Plaintiff did to bring about the

alleged retaliation, and what conduct should be deemed to be retaliatory, as opposed

to merely discriminatory. 

3. The Amended ComplaintIs Also Due To Be Dismissed for Lack

of Factual Plausibility

As stated previously, in order to survive a motion to dismiss brought under

Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. In addition to no dates, the Amended Complaint contains

20

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 20 of 22
no facts from which the Court can attribute any of the conduct alleged to the

Defendant. For example, it mentions a supervisor, Ms. Jones, made fun of her

disability. It does not allege when this occurred, whether she reported it, and whether

the Defendant knew about it. Only three other individual employees of the Defendant

are mentioned by name: Randy Redmill, Angela McClintock, and Amanda Rice. No

allegation of wrongdoing is alleged as to McClintock and Rice. Although the

Amended Complaint does allege that Redmill ignored her request for reasonable

accommodation, since no dates or other context is given, that allegation is a “mere

conclusory statement[]” which “do[es] not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. All other

allegations in the Amended Complaint are made against unnamed co-workers of the

Plaintiff who are referenced typically as “someone,” “them,” “they,” or “the State.”

It is impossible to find that a claim has been stated against the Defendant based on

such allegations.

6

Without dates, times, names, and other specifics, it is just as plausible that the

Conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint was legitimate workplace discipline as

6

 As another example, the Plaintiff also complains that the tardiness rule was

implemented differently as to her than as to African American employees. First, it is unclear as to

whether the Plaintiff is making a claim for relief based upon this allegation. Even if she is, she

does not plead enough facts to establish that this was the Defendant’s policy, that it knew about

this, or to otherwise show how the Defendant should be liable. Regardless, she states that after

she complained the system was implemented fairly. Further, to the extent that she is claiming that

she was fired because she was white, and that tardiness was just an excuse, the fact that she has

pled that the system was administered fairly undermines such allegations.

21

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 21 of 22
discrimination. The motion to dismiss will be GRANTED by separate order. 

DONE this 24th day of March, 2017.

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

22

Case 2:16-cv-00662-VEH Document 22 Filed 03/24/17 Page 22 of 22