Williams v. Amazon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------- X

:

MICHAEL O. WILLIAMS,

:

Plaintiff,

: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER

– against – :

24-CV-2733 (AMD) (SJB)

:

AMAZON,

:

Defendant.

:

--------------------------------------------------------------- X

ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:

On March 27, 2024, the pro se plaintiff filed th is action in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York, as well a s a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The action was transferred to this District on April 12, 2024. (ECF No. 7.)

The Court grants the application to proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose of this

Order. As discussed below, the complaint is dismisse d with leave to amend.

BACKGROU ND

The complaint—a downloadable form from the Southern District of New York titled

“Employment Discrimination Complaint”—does not allege specific violations of federal or state

employment law; rather, in the “Statement of Claim” section, the plaintiff checked several boxes

noting that the defendant “terminated [his] employment,” “provided [him] with terms and

conditions of employment different from those of similar employees,” “retaliated against [him],”

and “harassed [him] or create a hostile work environment.” (ECF No. 1 at 1–5.) To support

these allegations, the plaintiff writes that the defendant “fired [him] for riding carts after one

warning,” “harassed [him] and refused [his] employment rights for an appeal.” (ECF No. 1 at 5.)

He also attached a number of exhibits, including a letter from the defendant stating that the

plaintiff’s “date of involuntary termination of [his] employment” is July 19, 2023, an undated

administrative complaint that the plaintiff filed with the defendant’s human resources

department, the defendant’s November 16, 2023 response to that administrative complaint, and

copies of the plaintiff’s previous disciplinary write-ups. (ECF No. 1 at 8–59.) The plaintiff

wants his job back, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.1

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must plead “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 is plausible “when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir.

2011). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is

“inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Further, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to provide a

short, plain statement of his claim against each defendant named so that they have adequate

notice of the claims against them. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that “tenders naked

assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (internal citations and

alterations omitted). To satisfy this standard, a complaint must at a minimum “disclose sufficient

information to permit the defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is

complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.” Kittay v. Kornstein,

230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). “When a complaint fails to

comply with these requirements contained in Rule 8, the district court has the power, on motion

or sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint or to strike such parts as are redundant or immaterial.”

1 The plaintiff requests damages for “[t]ime away from work,” “denial of employee rights,” “harassment,”

“mental fatigue,” and “PTSD.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.)

Chapman v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 558 F. Supp. 3d 45, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (citations

and brackets omitted).

Although a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are held “to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),2 a district court must

dismiss an in forma pauperis action if the complaint “is frivolous,” “fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). Further, while “pro se plaintiffs are

generally given leave to amend a deficient complaint, a district court may deny leave to amend

when amendment would be futile.” Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009).

DISCUSSION

The complaint does not allege a cognizable violation of federal or state employment law.

The sole allegations are that the defendant “fired [the plaintiff] for riding carts after one

warning,” “harassed [him]” and “refused [his] employment rights for an appeal.” (ECF No. 1 at

5.) The complaint must be dismissed, because the plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient “to

permit the defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and

to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.” Kittay, 230 F.3d at 541 (2d Cir. 2000).

Although he checked several boxes stating that the defendant harassed or retaliated against him,

the plaintiff does not explain why he is entitled to relief or that the Court has subject matter

jurisdiction to hear his claim.3

2 See also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, the court

“remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally”).

3 Further, to the extent that the plaintiff intends to bring an employment discrimination claim under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he must also show that he exhausted all administrative remedies and

include relevant documentation from either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)

or the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Accordingly, the complaint is deficient under Rule 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and must be

dismissed. See e.g., Hodge v. New York Unemployment, No. 24-CV-1631, 2024 WL 1513643, at

*1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2024); Chavez v. Cause Yall Took My Phone I Don’t Know Their Names,

No. 21-CV-8526, 2021 WL 5401485, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2021) (“The complaint does not

contain a single fact suggesting that [the plaintiff] can state a viable claim that falls within the

Court’s jurisdiction.”).

LEAVE TO AMEND

A pro se plaintiff should ordinarily be given the opportunity “to amend at least once

when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.”

Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav.

Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795–96 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court

grants the plaintiff 30 days to amend his complaint. However, if the plaintiff elects to file an

amended complaint, he must provide facts sufficient to support a cognizable violation of the

employment laws, as well as the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. For example, Title VII is a

federal statute that prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual with respect

to “compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s

race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To establish a Title VII

claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he has exhausted all administrative remedies and

provide facts to show that he is a member of a protected class, was qualified for the position, and

suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances giving rise to an inference of

discrimination. Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 2010).

Although the plaintiff may attach documents as exhibits in support of his amended

complaint, he must provide enough factual context to satisfy Rule 8—he may not rely on exhibits

to take the place of a statement of claim. See, e.g., Irons v. U.S. Gov’t, No. 21-CV-4683, 2021

WL 4407595, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021) (“Neither the court nor defendants should have to

parse through the complaint or attached exhibits to ascertain the factual basis for plaintiff’s

claims.”). If available, the plaintiff must attach all relevant documentation from the EEOC, the

New York State Division of Human Rights, or the New York City Commission on Human

Rights that bear on whether the defendant exhausted his administrative remedies. The new

complaint must be captioned “Amended Complaint” and bear the same docket number as this

Memorandum & Order, No. 24-CV-2733 (AMD) (SJB). The amended complaint will replace

the original complaint in its entirety; in other words, the amended complaint must stand on its

own without reference to the original complaint.

The Court will close the case after 30 days if the plaintiff does not file an amended

complaint or otherwise show good cause for an extension of time. The plaintiff may contact the

City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project at 212-382-4729, for free,

confidential, limited-scope legal assistance.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The

Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the

plaintiff and note service on the docket.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this

Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status

is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

s/Ann M. Donnelly

___________________________

ANN M. DONNELLY

United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

April 19, 2024