stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
How later courts described this case
- stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”
- stating that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
RENO JONES, )
Plaintiff,
V. No. 1:21-CV-167 SNLJ
GORDONVILLE GRILL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff Reno Jones’s amended complaint.
ECF No. 4. For the reasons explained below, the Court will allow this case to proceed against the
defendant.
Legal Standard on Initial Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.’ To
state a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “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.” /d. at 678. Determining whether
a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense. /d. at 679. The court must “accept as
true the facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir.
aint requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the Court granted the request on December 1, 2021. ECF
os. 2, 3.
2016). See also Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating
that court must accept factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required to “accept as true
any legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).
When reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must give it the benefit
of a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction”
means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the district court should construe the
plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se
complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to “assume facts that are not
alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger complaint”).
In addition, affording a pro se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those
who proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Complaint
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 16, 2021 by filing an employment
discrimination complaint against his former employer, defendant Gordonville Grill. ECF No. 1.
The complaint was on a Court-provided form, and plaintiff checked the boxes indicating he was
bringing his lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e, ef seg. (“Title VII’), for employment discrimination on the basis of race. Plaintiff
specified the discriminatory conduct as termination of his employment, terms and conditions
differed from those of similar employees, and harassment. Attached to his complaint was the
charge of discrimination he filed with the Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Notice
of Right-to-Sue Letter. ECF No. 1-3. Within his charge of discrimination, Plaintiff alleged
discrimination based on race, sex, and retaliation.
On December 1, 2021, the Court reviewed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, and determined it was subject to dismissal because he failed to submit a clear statement of
the claim describing how he suffered employment discrimination on the basis of his race. In
consideration of plaintiffs self-represented status, the Court gave him the opportunity to file an
amended complaint.
Discussion
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 20, 2021, ECF No. 4, and refiled his
Notice of Right-to-Sue Letter, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff specifies he is bringing this action pursuant to
Title VII for employment discrimination on the basis of race and gender. Plaintiff describes the
discriminatory conduct as termination of his employment, terms and conditions differed from those
of similar employees, retaliation, and harassment.
In the section designated to assert his statement of claim, plaintiff indicates he is an
“African American Black male” who was employed by defendant Gordonville Grill for four years
until he was terminated in March of 2020. Plaintiff states he was meeting his employer’s
expectations and was never written up or reprimanded. Plaintiff alleges his supervisors, Tyler
Kemp and Louis Lawrence, used abusive language towards him. For example, Kemp told plaintiff
to “suck [his] dick,” and Lawrence called plaintiff “color boy” and made “unwanted
hom[o]sex[ua]l comments.” Plaintiff asserts he “was fired for no call no show even tho[ugh] [he]
called.” Plaintiff states that “other white employees with the same job title w[Jere not fired for no
call no show.” For relief, plaintiff seeks $30,000 in lost wages and $15,000 for emotional distress.
The allegations in plaintiff's complaint for race and gender discrimination were similarly
addressed in his charge of discrimination. See ECF No. 1-3 at 1. The EEOC Notice of Right-to-
Sue Letter is dated October 20, 2021, giving him ninety (90) days in which to file a lawsuit under
federal law. See ECF No. 1-3 at 7-8; ECF No. 6. Plaintiff filed this action on November 16, 2021.
It therefore appears that plaintiff's lawsuit is timely, and he has exhausted his administrative
remedies. The Court will, therefore, allow this case to proceed against defendant Gordonville Grill.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue process or cause
process to issue upon the amended complaint as to defendant Gordonville Grill at 829 State
Highway Z, Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701.
Dated this (FF day of January, 2022.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE