Jafree v. Barber

163 Citing cases

  1. Linda Constr. Inc. v. Allied Waste Indus.

    Case No. 15 C 8714 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, such "[a]llegations of race discrimination must be supported by material facts, not mere conclusions." See, ECF No. 64 at 6 (citing Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982)). Yet despite having been instructed thusly, LCI again leans on the same allegations that were twice found to be conclusory and insufficient to support an inference of racial animus.

  2. The Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College

    889 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 663 times
    Holding that "the question of whether it might have been error for the court to have denied leave to amend is not before us, because plaintiffs never requested it"

    Neither general denunciations of racism nor refusals to meet with Review members — even white Review members — are enough to premise an inference of discrimination based on the Students' race. See Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982) (requiring fact-specific allegations showing that "race was the reason for" the discrimination). As one court has written:

  3. Williams v. U.S. Postal Service

    873 F.2d 1069 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 64 times
    Imposing Rule 38 sanctions where appellant failed to cite relevant cases or address district court's reasoning

    When an amendment will not cure the legal deficiencies of the original complaint, the district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant leave to amend. Textor v. Board of Regents of Northern Illinois University, 711 F.2d 1387, 1391 (7th Cir. 1983); Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 1982). Failure to remedy the jurisdictional defects of a complaint is one example of where an amendment would prove futile.

  4. Turner v. Unacast Corp.

    Civil Action 1:23-cv-02742 (UNA) (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2023)

    “[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966); Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012); Otero v. U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141-42 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see also Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). In other words, the decision of whether or not to prosecute, and for what offense, rests with the prosecution, see, e.g., Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978), and “an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion[,]” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

  5. Linda Constr. Inc. v. City of Chicago

    Case No. 15 C 8714 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016)

    Allegations of race discrimination must be supported by material facts, not mere conclusions. Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this burden simply by tacking "because of [Plaintiffs'] race" onto their allegations or by merely alleging that Defendants "treated [Plaintiffs] differently than whites, on the basis of racial animus."

  6. Linda Constr. Inc. v. City of Chicago

    Case No. 15 C 8714 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, the alleged conspirators must have intended to discriminate against the plaintiff and deprive him of equal protection or equal privileges and immunities because of his race. Griffin v. Breckinridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102-03 (1983); see also, Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640 at 643 ("To sufficiently state a cause of action [under Section 1985] the plaintiff must allege some facts that demonstrate that his race was the reason for the defendant's [action]." (emphasis added)).

  7. Szeklinksi v. City of Oak Creek

    Case No. 04-1040 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 16, 2006)

    Nor has he alleged any racial or other class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus. Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). Thus, Szeklinski's claims under Section 1985 will be dismissed.

  8. Payne v. Abbott Laboratories

    999 F. Supp. 1145 (N.D. Ill. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that the plaintiffs "must plead the elements of the prima facie case of discrimination"

    In order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs cannot plead intentional discrimination in a conclusory fashion. They must plead sufficient facts to show or raise a plausible inference that the defendant purposefully discriminated against them because of their race. Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982) (plaintiff "must allege some facts that demonstrate that his race was the reason" for the defendant's actions); Davis v. Frapolly, 747 F. Supp. 451, 452 (N.D.Ill. 1989) ("A mere conclusory allegation of intentional discrimination is insufficient" under § 1981.) This burden may be satisfied by allegations showing direct evidence of discrimination, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985), or through the indirect, burden-shifting method first established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

  9. Select Creations, v. Paliafito America

    830 F. Supp. 1213 (E.D. Wis. 1993)   Cited 31 times

    The plain language of the rule directs the court to grant leave "when justice so requires," Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), and the court must respect the spirit of the rule, which is tolerant toward amendments. Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 1982).

  10. Yusuf v. Vassar College

    827 F. Supp. 952 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 39 times
    Applying these standards to a § 1981 and 20 U.S.C. § 1681 claim

    Thus, under § 1981, the events of the intentional and purposeful discrimination, as well as the racial animus constituting the motivating factor for the defendant's actions must be specifically pleaded in the complaint to withstand dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Gen. Bldg. Contractors, 458 U.S. at 391, 102 S.Ct. at 3150; Albert, 851 F.2d at 572; Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 17 (1st Cir. 1989); Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). In the case at bar, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated his rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, by virtue of the fact that: (1) he is a native and citizen of the Republic of Bangladesh; (2) the Panel found him guilty of sexual harassment; (3) the penalty imposed upon the plaintiff was disparate when compared to the penalty imposed upon Weisman, a Caucasian student, who was found guilty of assault.