Opinion
Case No. 02-4012-JAR.
September 12, 2002,
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Ronnie Hutchinson, proceeding pro se, brings this action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. for reverse gender and religious discrimination. Pending before the Court is defendant Sam's Club's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has responded. For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Sam's Club is denied.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3), both of which were denied by the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 4 and 17).
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts in plaintiff's complaint and view them in a light most favorable to plaintiff. The court must view all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and the pleadings must be construed liberally. The issue in reviewing the sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint is not whether he will prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. The court may not dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim "unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 118 (1990); see Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 (10th cir. 1984) ("[a]ll well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be taken as true").
Swanson, 750 F.2d at 813; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); Lafoy v. HMO Colorado, 988 F.2d 97, 98 (10th Cir. 1993).
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46(1957); see Jacobs, Visconsi Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 1991).
The court is limited in its review of defendant's motion to dismiss. The court may consider only the well-pleaded allegations contained within the four corners of plaintiff's complaint. Although plaintiff need not state precisely each element of the claim, he must plead minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved.
Gagan v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1474 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 (1995).
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because plaintiff appears pro se, the court must remain mindful of additional considerations. A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Thus, if a pro se plaintiff's complaint can reasonably be read "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it [the court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." However, it is not "the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant." For that reason, the court should not "construct arguments or theories for the plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of those issues," nor should it "supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on plaintiff's behalf."
Id. at 1110.
Id.
Id.
Drake v. City of Fort. Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991).
Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
In this case, Sam's Club alleges that plaintiff failed to provide any substantive factual basis on which to bring a Title VII claim. Specifically, Sam's Club takes issue with plaintiff's failure to set forth facts in the Civil Complaint form provided pro se litigants, instead merely checking applicable boxes for complained of conduct. Although plaintiff did not allege facts in the form, he did attach additional pages as directed, setting forth in detail his factual allegations against Sam's Club. Plaintiff also attached his complaint filed with the Kansas Human Rights Commission, which also sets forth in detail plaintiff's allegations against Sam's Club. Construing plaintiff's pro se complaint liberally, the Court finds that it can be read to state a claim upon which plaintiff can prevail. Accordingly, Sam's Club's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.