UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

THEODORE G. JENKINS, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 1:15-cv-61-PPS

)

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER

Theodore Jenkins, a pro se plaintiff, has filed a form complaint alleging he was

discriminated against [DE 1] along with a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

[DE 3]. As explained below Jenkins’s complaint does not state a cognizable claim upon

which relief could be granted. Thus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Jenkins’s

Motion will be denied and his complaint will be dismissed. 

BACKGROUND

Jenkins has filed a complaint alleging the Postmaster General and six defendants

violated his civil rights. This much is clear. Jenkins, a 58-year-old African-American

man, alleges he was discriminated against on account of his race, sex, and age and has

brought claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 

Beyond that, Jenkins’s complaint is confusing. The sole factual-seeming

allegation is as follows: 

1
“The USPS managerial overt discriminatory practices acknowledges and

confirms the USPS agency arbitrary and capricious anoesis (a known federal 

decision) that incurred proof-texting and plausible denied culpability impacting

humanity and the known plaintiff.” 

[DE 1 at 3]. 

The remainder of the complaint’s “facts” section contains citations to federal

statutes and regulations, as well as a list of EEOC cases where “the USPS/EEO Agency

proactive discriminatory dilemma are acknowledge[d] and denied remedy. Id.

DISCUSSION

Ordinarily, a plaintiff must pay a statutory filing fee of $400 to bring an action in

federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). However, the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28

U.S.C. § 1915, provides indigent litigants an opportunity for meaningful access to the

federal courts despite their inability to pay the costs and fees associated with that

access. To authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must make two

determinations: first, whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the

action, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and second, whether the action is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim upon 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). 

With respect to the second of these determinations, district courts have the

power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen complaints even before service of the

complaint on the defendants, and courts must dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a

2
claim. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915(e)(2)(B) as when addressing a

motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DeWalt v. Carter, 224

F.3d 607, 611 (7th Cir. 2000). To survive a motion to dismiss under federal pleading

standards,

[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face. 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).

Here, Jenkins has not pled any factual content that I can discern. The complaint

alleges that the Postal Service engaged in “arbitrary and capricious anoeis” that

“incurred proof-texting” [DE 1 at 3]. I do not know what that statement means on a

semantic level, and so certainly cannot reasonably infer from it that the Defendants

discriminated against Jenkins. Since Jenkins has not plausibly alleged a discrimination

claim, his complaint must be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Jenkins’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis [DE 3] is DENIED, and his Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

SO ORDERED.

Entered: March 4, 2015. s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4