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.

Alphonse Pierre v. Uniweld Product

November 8, 2011

ALPHONSE PIERRE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNIWELD PRODUCT, INC., DEFENDANT.



ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Alphonse Pierre's pro se Complaint [DE 1] ("Complaint")*fn1 and Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [DE 3] ("Application"). The Court has considered the Complaint and the Application, and is otherwise advised in the premises.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, Defendant UniWeld Product, Inc. ("Defendant") employed Plaintiff from July 10, 2006 to November 2, 2006. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he performed well at his job and that Defendant was pleased with his performance, as evidenced by his promotion on October 18, 2006. Id. However, on November 2, 2006, the owner of Defendant's company allegedly called Plaintiff into his office and said, "Mr. Pierre, I have learned from your co-workers that you never do a good job. You broke the machine. I do not need you in our place. Get out of here. Get off my premises, you fucking black Haitian! I do not have a place for an architect here." Id.

Plaintiff claims, "[a] co-worker at the site of my new assignment, said negative things about me to the above-named owner. This was subsequent to being present when my supervisor and foreman, Shelby Boggess, thanked me for a job well done and announced I would receive a raise the following week. And also after I had been receive this Notice under the Laws Enforced by the EEOC."*fn2 Id. at 1-2. He maintains that he did not break any machines, and that he did a good job at work. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff "concluded he was firing me for reasons unrelated to my job performance, but related instead to my status as a Black Haitian and immigrant worker under the United States Constitution Laws." Id. Therefore, Plaintiff states, "I would like to file a Lawsuit against the Respondent named (UniWeld Product, Inc.) in the charge JOB DISCRIMINATION RACE." Id. at 2.*fn3

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Because Plaintiff has not paid a filing fee, the Court conducts a screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Section 1915 reads in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that-- . . .

(B) the action or appeal--(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).*fn4 Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997) ("The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."). At this stage of litigation, the allegations of a complaint are taken as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1393 (11th Cir. 1997).

Pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1979) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). Nevertheless, the Court does not have a "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. Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

In order to state a claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). If, "on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of ...


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.