Opinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-759
07-31-2012
SHIRLEY C. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES and CLYDEL DAVIS, Defendants.
Judge Haynes
ORDER
Plaintiff, Shirley Jackson, filed this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act asserting claims of discrimination on the basis of color and for retaliation.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's application to proceed in in forma pauperis. District Court without Prepaying Fees and Costs (ECF No. 2). From her application, Plaintiff lacks sufficient financial resources from which to pay the fee required for the filing of a complaint, the application is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the complaint in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to conduct an initial review of any complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss the complaint, or any claim asserted therein, to the extent it is facially frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Begola v. Brown, 172 F.3d 47 (Table), 1998 WL 894722, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 1998) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)). The Court must construe a pro se plaintiffs complaint liberally, Boag v. McDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the plaintiffs allegations as true unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
In her complaint, Plaintiff names as defendants the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and her former supervisor, Clydel Davis. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to discrimination on the basis of color and retaliation after she made an internal complaint of discrimination. Based upon the EEOC documents attached to the complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiff states Title VII claims of discrimination and retaliation against the Temiessee Department of Children's Services that are not facially frivolous or malicious. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to ISSUE PROCESS to that Defendant.
Because Congress validly abrogated the states' immunity when it enacted Title VII, see Freeman v. Mich. Dep't of State, 808 F.2d 1174, 1177 (6th Cir. 1987) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, All U.S. 445 (1976)), the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiffs Title VII claims against the state agency defendant.
As to Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Clydel Davis, however, Title VII "does not create individual liability for individuals in supervisory positions." Akers v. Alvey, 338 F.3d 491, 500 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 404 (6th Cir. 1997)). Thus, Plaintiff's claims against defendant Clydel Davis are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
______________________
WILLIAM J. HAYNES. JR.
United States District Judge