The opinion
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BRIAN L, TAYLOR,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 19-16817
v. OPINION & ORDER
MARC SULLIVAN,
Defendant.
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Brian F. Taylor brings the above-captioned action in forma pauperis pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.E. 1-1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis, but DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint (D.E. 1)
(“Compl.”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Under Section 1915, this Court may excuse a litigant from prepayment of fees when the
litigant “establish[es] that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. People Express
Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has sufficiently established his inability
to pay for the costs of his suit and the Court grants Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis
without prepayment of fees or costs.
When allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis the Court must review the
complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who
is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915{e)(2)(B). When considering dismissal under Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the Court must apply
the same standard of review as that for dismissing a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App’x 120, 122 (3d Cir. 2012).
To state a claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “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). Although the plausibility standard “does
not impose a probability requirement, it does require a pleading to show more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780,
786 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As a result, a plaintiff must
“allege sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will uncover proof of her
claims.” Jd. at 789. In other words, although a plaintiff need not plead detailed factual allegations,
“a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atl. Corp,, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted).
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the Complaint liberally and
holds it to a less stringent standard than papers filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972). The Court, however, need not “credit a pro se plaintiff's ‘bald assertions’ or ‘legal
conclusions.’” Grohs v. Yatauro, 984 F. Supp. 2d 273, 282 (D.N.J. 2013) (quoting Morse v. Lower
Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)).
Plaintiff's Complaint states that he is bringing constitutional civil rights claims “according
to age and disability” against Marc Sullivan! (“Defendant”). Compi. at 2. In support of this
allegation, Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“the ADA”) and caused Plaintiff to suffer “[p]ersonal [i]njury ([mJental)” as a result of his
termination. /d. at 7. To establish a prima face case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that (1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is
otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable
accommodations by the employer; and (3) he has suffered an otherwise adverse employment
decision as a result of discrimination.” Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 306 (3d
Cir. 1999) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Plaintiff claims that he was terminated after Defendant found him speaking on the phone
at work. /d. at 6. After Defendant allegedly ordered Plaintiff to hang up the phone, Plaintiff states
that he and Defendant argued about the “demeaning tone” Defendant used while speaking to
Plaintiff. /d. Plaintiff claims that during that encounter, Defendant fired Plaintiff. fd. Plaintiff
indicates that he “suffers legally and clinically from Bi-Polar Disorder and Paranoid
Schizophrenia,” Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead any factual allegations that Defendant
terminated Plaintiff as a result of discrimination or on the basis of his disability or age. Jd. at 7.
Instead, Plaintiff indicates that he was fired for getting into an argument with Defendant over
Plaintiff's phone use. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to plausibly state a claim against Defendant. Id. at
6-7. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)qii).
' Defendant Sullivan is alleged to be Plaintiff's “Event Manager” at “CDS/Advantage
Solutions.”
When dismissing a case brought by a pro se plaintiff, a court must decide whether the
dismissal will be with prejudice or without prejudice, the latter of which affords a plaintiff with
leave to amend. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110-11 (3d Cir. 2002). The
district court may deny leave to amend only if (a) the moving party's delay in seeking amendment
is undue, motivated by bad faith, or prejudicial to the non-moving party or (b) the amendment
would be futile. Adams v. Gould, Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 864 (3d Cir. 1984). Given Plaintiffs
allegations, it appears that any attempt at amendment would be futile. However, because Plaintiff
is proceeding pro se and this is the Court’s initial screening, the Court will provide Plaintiff with
one additional opportunity to file an amended complaint. Therefore, the Court provides Plaintiff
thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies set forth herein.
If Plaintiff is proceeding pursuant to a legal theory other than those discussed herein, he
must set forth the basis for his claim and provide plausible factual allegations to support the claim.
If Plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint curing these deficiencies within thirty (30) days,
the dismissal will then be with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff will be
precluded from filing any future suit against any present Defendant, concerning the allegations in
the Complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this. day of O<*bs2¢_, 2019,
ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Plaintiff Brian L. Taylor’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the Complaint without
prepayment of the filing fee; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii); and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of receipt
of this Opinion and Order, curing the deficiencies noted herein. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint within thirty (30) days of receipt, dismissal of this case shall be with prejudice.” In
addition, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint but it is still deficient, this case will be dismissed
with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Opinion and Order upon Plaintiff
by regular and certified mail return receipt.
AeA, OQ < :
John Michael Vazquez/U°S.D.J.
2 A dismissal with prejudice means that Plaintiff will not be able to bring any future action against
Defendant based on the allegations in the case.