Opinion
CIVIL NO: 3:19-CV-00158
06-04-2019
HOLLY IVANITCH, Plaintiff, v. CITIZEN'S VOICE, Defendant.
(Judge Mariani) () REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction.
After reviewing the complaint, we concluded that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We granted the plaintiff, Holly Ivanitch, leave to file an amended complaint, but Ivanitch failed to do so. Thus, we now recommend that the Court dismiss the complaint and close the case.
II. Factual Background and Procedural History.
Ivanitch, proceeding pro se, commenced this case by filing a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. She filed the complaint on January 28, 2019, against Citizen's Voice. Doc. 1 at 1. Ivanitch alleges Citizen's Voice violated the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Id. at 2. She also attached an EEOC Dismissal Notice, in which the EEOC determined that based on the information before it, it was unable to conclude that there was a statutory violation. Id at 3.
The narrative portion of Ivanitch's complaint is two sentences in length. Id. at 2. The statement in its entirety reads "Employer withheld wages/tips violating the Equal Pay Act. Also employer violated [title VII] due to sexual harassment regarding his wife." Id. Ivanitch seeks monetary relief for lost wages, tips, other job opportunities, and mental anguish. Id. Based on the scant details and ambiguous use of pronouns, the allegations appear to be that Ivanitch was an employee of Citizen's Voice and during that employment, she was discriminated against regarding wages and sexual harassment occurred to either Ivanitch's or someone else's wife.
The court granted Ivanitch's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on February 4, 2019. By order dated April 5, 2019, we found that Ivanitch's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and we granted Ivanitch leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Ivanitch has not filed an amended complaint.
III. Discussion.
A. Screening of in forma pauperis complaints standard of review.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) provides:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious
(ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must assess whether a pro se complaint "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." This statutory text mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The statement required by rule 8(a)(2) must give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and of the grounds upon which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but more is required than labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief," Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009). "A complaint has to 'show' such an entitlement with its facts." Id.
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). A court, however, "need not credit a complaint's bald assertions or legal conclusions when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Additionally, a court need not "assume that a . . . plaintiff can prove facts that the . . . plaintiff has not alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
Following Twombly and Iqbal, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, it must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level or mere speculation. In practice, consideration of the legal sufficiency of a complaint entails a three-step analysis:
First, the court must "tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim." Second, the court should identify allegations that, "because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumptions of truth." Finally, "where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief."Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679).
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and "'however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Nevertheless, "pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013). Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Rather, a pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that are sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a "short and plain" statement of a cause of action.
B. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Ivanitch cites two statutes applicable to gender discrimination, Tile VII and the Equal Pay Act. Title VII prohibits both discrimination and retaliation. The general discrimination provision of Title VII provides that it is "an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 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). The Equal Pay Act bars an employer from discriminating "on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions." 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).
Ivanitch's complaint fails to state a claim under either statute. The ambiguous statements in the complaint are wholly conclusory. No reasonable inference can be drawn that provides enough factual support to state a claim. The complaint fails to show how these statutes or any others were violated. The allegations also fail to show what role Citizen's Voice played in the violation.
Before dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the screening provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F. 3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). We granted Ivanitch leave to file an amended complaint, but Ivanitch failed to do so.
IV. Recommendation.
We, therefore, recommend that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and the case closed because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrates judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearings only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witness or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Submitted this 4th day of June, 2019.
S/Susan E. Schwab
Susan E. Schwab
United States Magistrate Judge