Opinion
Case No. 8:10-cv-2288-T-30TGW.
March 17, 2011
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 29). Plaintiff, who is proceeding in this case pro se, failed to file a response to Defendant's motion. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that it should be granted with leave to amend.
Plaintiff purports to bring claims of age and race discrimination, and retaliation against her employer St. Petersburg College ("SPC"). This Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice as to Defendant SPC based on the complaint's failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part that "[a] pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, however, once again, the second amended complaint is mostly comprised of narrative, or stream of consciousness thoughts, making it nearly impossible for SPC to formulate an answer.
Additionally, as SPC points out in its motion to dismiss, the purported acts of discrimination discussed in Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination ("Charge") and second amended complaint occurred, at the latest, in September 2007. And Plaintiff filed her Charge in January 2009. In Florida, a charge of discrimination must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged violation. Thus, Plaintiff should have filed her Charge no later than the end of July 2008.
Although Plaintiff does summarily allege in the second amended complaint that the employment violations were "continuing" in nature, she does not allege any facts supporting the notion that she was subjected to continuing discrimination. She also does not allege any facts supporting her contention that she was subjected to retaliation after she filed her Charge.
If the employment violations that are time-barred relate to incidents which occurred within the limitations period, they can be considered by the Court.
Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff one more chance to amend her complaint.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 29) is hereby GRANTED as set forth herein.
2. The claims against Defendant St. Petersburg College are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff to amend her claims against St. Petersburg College within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.
3. If Plaintiff does not amend her complaint by the time set forth in this Order, this action will be dismissed without further notice.DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.