Stallings

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CORY STALLINGS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25-CV-1636-NJR

SOUTHWESTERN ILLINOIS

COLLEGE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Cory Stallings’s Amended

Complaint (Doc. 10). The Court granted Stallings’s Application to Proceed in District

Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs but determined her initial complaint was deficient

under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; consequently, Stallings was

ordered to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 11). In Stallings’s amended complaint, she

continues to allege that her employer, Defendant Southwestern Illinois College, has

discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against her in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Doc. 13). She seeks reinstatement to her

old position, money damages, and costs. Id.

Because Stallings is proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee, the Court

must screen Stallings’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismiss

it if it is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money

damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v.

Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District judges have ample authority to dismiss

frivolous or transparently defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time

and legal expense.”).

Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief; and (3) a

demand for the relief sought. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). The Court accepts the plaintiff’s factual

allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729

F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels, however, are not enough. The

complaint must allege enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2013).

Stallings’s amended complaint, while an improvement over her original, fails to

state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “To bring a claim under the ADA, the plaintiff must

allege that they are disabled.” Koty v. DuPage County, 900 F.3d 515, 519 (7th Cir. 2018)

(citing Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 1170, 1172 (7th Cir. 2013)). Stallings does

not do so. Nor does she allege facts tying the alleged discrimination and harassment to

her disability—another requirement to state a claim. Brooks v. Avancez, 39 F.4th 424, 433

(7th Cir. 2022) (to state a claim for discrimination under the ADA, plaintiff must allege

“(1) she is disabled; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the

job with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) she suffered an adverse employment

action; and (4) the adverse action was caused by her disability” (citing Kurtzhals v. County

of Dunn, 969 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2020))); Ford v. Marion County Sheriff’s Off., 942 F.3d

839, 856 (7th Cir. 2019) (to state a claim for harassment under the ADA, plaintiff must

allege “(1) they were subject to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on

their disability; (3) the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of

employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment; and (4) there is a basis

for employer liability” (cleaned up)).

The amended complaint similarly fails to state a claim for retaliation because

Stallings does not allege facts showing she was engaged in “protected activity” under the

ADA. Brooks, 39 F.4th at 433 (“[F]or a retaliation claim, [a plaintiff] must show that ‘(1) she

is engaged in protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a

causal connection exists between the two.’” (quoting Rozumalski v. W.F. Baird & Assocs.,

Ltd., 937 F.3d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 2019))); see also, e.g., Preddie v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch.

Corp., 799 F.3d 806, 814–15 (7th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “protected activity” means

seeking an accommodation for or raising a claim of discrimination because of one’s

disability). Raising concerns of discrimination to Human Resources is not enough to

constitute protected activity. (See Doc. 13, at 5–6). Instead, Stallings must allege that the

discrimination she reported to Human Resources was due to her disability.

The Court is sensitive to Stallings’s pro se status and as such will give Stallings one

more chance to amend her complaint. In this second amendment, Stallings must identify

her basis for invoking the ADA—namely, her disability and facts supporting the above-

listed elements for each of her four claims. If Stallings fails to do so a third time, the Court

may dismiss this case with prejudice.

For these reasons, Plaintiff Cory Stallings is ORDERED to file an amended

complaint on or before January 5, 2026. Failure to comply with this Court’s order may

result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2025 Tl (CocuitigD

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4