United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
THOMAS E. MORRISON, Plaintiff,
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING “DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS” AND “DEFENDANT SEARLE'S MOTION TO
DISMISS OR MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT”
BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on “Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss” (Doc. # 70) and “Defendant
Searle's Motion to Dismiss or Motion for More Definite
Statement.” (Doc. # 73). Plaintiff has not filed a
response. After reviewing the motions, court file, and the
record, the Court finds as follows:
an employee of the United States Postal Service, filed his
initial pro se complaint on November 27, 2017. On
March 30, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint based on his failure to comply with service
requirements and because postal service employees - as they
are not agency heads - were improperly joined as defendants.
(Doc. # 28). Judge Kovachevich then granted Plaintiff's
“Motion to Amend Complaint.” (Doc. ## 38, 42). In
her order, Judge Kovachevich reminded Plaintiff to plead a
“short and plain statement of [his] claim”
through “simple, concise, and direct allegations,
” in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) and (d)(1). The Court also provided Plaintiff with
guidance on where to find resources for pro se
February 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint,
(Doc. # 46), which is the subject of the instant
motions. The complaint was submitted using a
pro se “Complaint for Employment
Discrimination” form, and Plaintiff appears to bring
claims for wrongful termination, failure to accommodate
disability, retaliation, and harassment for incidents that
occurred between June 1, 2015 - July 26, 2016.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). “Although Rule 8(a) does not require
‘detailed factual allegations,' it does require
‘more than labels and conclusions'; a
‘formulaic recitation of the cause of action will not
do.'” Young v. Lexington Ins. Co., No.
18-62468, 2018 WL 7572240, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-62468-CIV,
2019 WL 1112274 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2019) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). In order to
survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be
sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded facts
allow the court “to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940, (2009).
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is generally limited
to the four corners of the complaint. Rickman v.
Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F.Supp. 232, 233 (M.D. Fla.
1995). Furthermore, when reviewing a complaint for facial
sufficiency, a court “must accept [a] [p]laintiff's
well pleaded facts as true, and construe the [c]omplaint in
the light most favorable to the [p]laintiff. Id.
(citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236
Plaintiff in this case is proceeding pro se, the
Court more liberally construes the pleadings. Alba v.
Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2018). However,
a pro se plaintiff must still conform with
procedural rules and the Court does not have “license
to act as de facto counsel” on behalf of a
pro se plaintiff. United States v. Padgett,
917 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019).
argue that: (1) postal service employees sued individually
must be dismissed with prejudice because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction; (2) Plaintiff failed to allege
he exhausted the requisite administrative remedies; and (3)
Plaintiff failed to allege a plausible claim of
discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.
Dismissal of postal service employees
of discrimination made under Title VII and the Rehabilitation
Act may only be brought against the head of the department,
agency, or unit against which discrimination is alleged.
Farrell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 910 F.Supp.
615, 618 (M.D. Fla. 1995); see also Glover v.
Donahoe, 626 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir.
2015) (finding the only properly named defendant for
plaintiff's Title VII claims is the postmaster general,
in his official capacity).
addition to suing the Postmaster General of the United States
Postal Service, Plaintiff also sues several current and
retired Postal Service employees. The only proper defendant
in this case is the Postmaster General, in his official
capacity. Therefore, this case is dismissed with prejudice as
to Defendants Eric D. Chavez, Timothy L. Dose, Lisa I.
Landes, Robert E. ...