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
VINCENT K. COBB, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:23-CV-220 SNLJ
)
CARRIAGE HOUSE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff Vincent Cobb’s amended complaint. [ECF No. 5]. Because
plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on December 20, 2023, [ECF No. 4], the
Court is required to review the amended complaint for frivolousness, maliciousness and for failure
to state a claim. After review of the amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, without
prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment for counsel, ECF No. 6, will be denied as moot.
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.” Id. 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. Id. 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.
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 Amended Complaint
Plaintiff Vincent Cobb filed this employment discrimination action on December 14, 2023,
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. [ECF
No. 1]. He filed this case against his former employer, the Carriage House, in Saint Genevieve,
Missouri, alleging disability discrimination, as well as retaliation, harassment and termination of
his employment. Id. In his initial complaint, plaintiff failed to indicate his purported disability, the
date of his termination or how he was harassed or retaliated against by his employer relative to his
disability. As such, on December 20, 2023, the Court ordered plaintiff to amend his pleading to
set forth his claims in compliance with the ADA. [ECF No. 4].
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on January 8, 2024. [ECF No. 5]. In the amended
complaint, plaintiff once again asserts that he is pursuing claims for discrimination, retaliation and
harassment under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.
Although plaintiff was informed in the Court’s December 20, 2023 Memorandum and Order that
he needed to attach both his charge of discrimination and right to sue from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he has not attached his charge of discrimination to his amended
complaint. Plaintiff, however, has provided a copy of his right to sue from the EEOC.
Plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim” in his amended complaint lacks cohesion and fails to
articulate facts relative to disability discrimination or failure to accommodate his purported
disability. He states:
Co-worker was gonna sell me a car I change my mind. Then he started harassment
by sabotaging my work trying to get me fired. I watched him do 3 other people the
same way and got fired. He discriminated my disability by mocking the way I walk
and mocking the way I talk being very ignorant. I told all upper authority of every
situation at the times. The accused even had a HR meeting and he would talk bad
about me to the other co-workers and even the truck drivers. Have had several other
situations. As well 2 other co-worker instances. Gary Klien and John have
witnessed him (Kelly Ziess) switching parts on my order hoping I wouldn’t catch
it. Got really ignorant when boss (Angie) let me leave early and I didn’t tell him
caused he said he was my supervisor in meeting with Katrina (HR) she told me that
he was not my supervisor/boss.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, reinstatement and reasonable accommodations.
Discussion
Plaintiff Vincent Cobb filed this employment discrimination action pursuant to the ADA
on December 14, 2023. He brings this action against his former employer, Carriage House,
alleging disability discrimination, as well as retaliation, harassment and termination of his
employment. Because his complaint lacks several essential elements, the Court will dismiss this
action, without prejudice.
Although plaintiff claims disability discrimination in this action, he has failed to articulate
his alleged disability1 within the body of his complaint. To state a prima facie ADA claim, a
plaintiff is required to demonstrate that “1) he is a person with a disability as defined by statute;
2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and 3) he was excluded from the benefit
due to discrimination based upon disability.” Randolph v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 850, 858 (8th Cir.
1999). Plaintiff’s failure to articulate his disability after he was told to do so in the December 20,
2023 Memorandum and Order is detrimental to his ADA claim for relief. The fact that he has not
properly alleged that he has a disability under the ADA is also grounds for dismissing his
harassment and retaliation claims, as plaintiff is unable to claim that the harassment and retaliation
occurred because of an alleged disability.
Additionally, plaintiff has failed to allege that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate
job expectations. He has not identified the job he was doing at Carriage House in either his original
complaint or his amended complaint. Additionally, he has not alleged that he met all the
expectations of his job at Carriage House or that he was discriminated against by his employer
because of his alleged disability.
1The ADA defines a “disability” as: “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as
having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). The threshold inquiry of determining whether plaintiff
is disabled within the meaning of the ADA requires an individualized analysis of the effects of the claimed
impairment on plaintiff’s life activities. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999); Mathieu
v. Gopher News Co., 273 F.3d 769, 775 (8th Cir. 2001). Examples of major life activities include caring
for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending,
speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. 42 U.S.C. §
12102(2).
Last, to the extent plaintiff is alleging that he was denied accommodations at Carriage
House, he has also failed to articulate when and if he sought disability accommodations, and if
they were purportedly denied. Additionally, plaintiff has failed to indicate persons at Carriage
House who were given accommodations who were in similar positions to him.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Court is required to dismiss plaintiffs action for
failure to state a claim. This action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF
No. 6] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good
faith.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 21 day of February, 2024.
LE q Lf
STEPHENN. LIMBAUGH, JR
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE