Summary
applying Section 1915(e)(B) to non-prisoner pro se litigant
Summary of this case from O'Neal v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.Opinion
No. 15-20178
10-27-2015
SHIVAM P. PATEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, Defendant - Appellee
Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District court for the Southern District of Texas
U.S.D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00028
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. --------
Shivam P. Patel, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against United Airlines alleging that United retaliated against him for filing a discrimination claim by enforcing a rule requiring a six-month wait before reapplying for a lateral position. The district court, implicitly exercising its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed the case sua sponte following an oral hearing. See Newsome v. EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002) (applying § 1915(e) to a non-prisoner); Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 2013) ('we apply section 1915(e)'s . . . standard to both prisoner and non-prisoner litigation"). We have carefully considered the pertinent portions of the district court's record and opinion in light of the parties' briefs. We conclude that, even if we accept Patel's version of the facts, the complaint was properly dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Davis v. Fort Bend County, 765 F.3d 480, 489-90 (5th Cir. 2014) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2804 (2015).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY Patel's motions to strike and for remand.