Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-18 JVB.
June 11, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (DE 8), filed on February 10, 2010. Defendant is represented by counsel. Plaintiff is representing himself pro se.
A. Standard for Evaluating a Motion to Dismiss
B. Background and Facts
See Gibson v. Chi.,910 F.2d 15101520pro se, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 8994(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 106 Ashcroft v. Iqbal,129 S.Ct. 19371949Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544555 Id. Id. Twombly,550 U.S. at 570Id. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570See Brooks v. Ross,578 F.3d 574581Id. Id.
In Twombly the Supreme Court "retooled federal pleading standards, retiring the oft-quoted [Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 42, 47 (1957)] formulation that a pleading `should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the [pleader] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Killingsworth v HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618, (7th Cir. 2007).
In subsequent documents filed in the case, Plaintiff provides more details about his experience at FedEx. (See DE 11; DE 13.) Also, Plaintiff indicates that further details of the illegal employment actions allegedly committed against him by FedEx Ground are included in earlier records he filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission ("ICRC"). However, those writings have not been included with his Complaint in this case.
C. Analysis
Plaintiff has not satisfied the standard required for an adequate pleading, even for a pro se litigant. See Brooks, 578 F.3d at 581 (Three factors listed to help evaluate sufficiency of a pleading to overcome a motion to dismiss). The lack of details in the Plaintiff's Complaint fail to provide Defendant proper notice of the claim. See Id. Courts are not to accept mere "conclusory legal statements" as sufficient pleading, nor "factual allegations . . . so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice to defendants of the plaintiff's claim." Id. The act of checking off statutory claims on a form Complaint is merely Plaintiff's conclusion that the statutes were violated. These are legal conclusions not entitled to acceptance as true. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50. Plaintiff's "statement of legal claim" offers similar conclusory statements. First, Plaintiff identifies "physical mental threats," but fails to provide any information as to what these threats entailed. Second, he states simply "age discrimination," but does not mention any factual allegations to support that claim. Third, Plaintiff identifies "sexual slurs" and mentions a reference to an allegation that he is gay, but he does not tie this to any legal claim. Finally, Plaintiff claims that "5 out of 11 unload dept. emp's were favored by unload p/1 supervisor due to race church affiliation." The claim of favorable treatment is a mere conclusion unsupported by any factual allegations as to what that favoritism involved. "It is the conclusory nature of [Plaintiff]'s allegations . . . that disentitles them to the presumption of truth." Id. At 1951.
D. Conclusion
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 8) is granted. The Court gives Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by July 2. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this case without further notice.
In his amended Complaint, should he opt to file one, Plaintiff should include the details relevant to his claims, or include as attachments copies of the letters already filed with the EEOC and ICRC if those letters include information that would make a "claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
SO ORDERED.