Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-cv-144
02-24-2022
ROBERT W. JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. OM HOSPITALITY, INC., AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, AMTRUST GROUP PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, KIARA CASTILLO, HAMPTON INN, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, BENJAMIN MORRIS Defendants.
HORNAK, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ECF NO. 3
LISA PUPO LENIHAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint, which was commenced in forma pauperis, be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as frivolous, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend his claim for discrimination in the award of benefits, specifically to include facts concerning the alleged discrimination, and how all the named Defendants were personally involved in the alleged discrimination. It is also recommended that Plaintiff be given 20 days from the date of an order adopting this Report and Recommendation to file an Amended Complaint should he wish to proceed with this civil action.
II. REPORT
A. Facts
Plaintiff, Robert W. Johnson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging only the following:
I, Robert W. Johnson, was discriminated against for employee benefits and medical coverage by Amtrust North America, Benjamin Morris, OM Hospitality Inc., Amtrust Financial Services, Amtrust Group, Pennsylvania: Department of Labor & Industry, Kiara Castillo and Hampton Inn for claim # 3335179-1: DOI: 04/03/2021: Employer: OM Hospitality Inc. All parties committed a breach of contract for employee rights and benefits.Complaint, ECF No. 3 at 1-2.
Attached to the Complaint are two (2) exhibits. The first exhibit is the Civil Cover Sheet where Plaintiff indicated that this is a civil rights action for violation of his due process rights. He seeks $100 million dollars in damages. ECF No. 3-1.
Exhibit 2 contains four pages. Page 1 is an “Incident Report” stating that on April 3, 2021, Plaintiff tripped on a duvet sheet, attempted to catch his fall, and as a consequence, is experiencing back pain. He also hit his head on the wall. Defendant Kiara Castillo prepared this report. ECF No. 3-2 at 1.
Page 2 of Exhibit 2 is a letter on Defendant AmTrust North America's letterhead, written by Defendant Benjamin Morris who is the Claims Adjuster for Defendant AmTrust Financial Services. Therein Defendant Morris advises Plaintiff that he is the Workers' Compensation adjuster assigned to his case, that he has been unable to contact the Plaintiff, and is requesting that Plaintiff contact him upon receipt of the letter to discuss his Workers' Compensation case. Morris further advises Plaintiff that his benefits may be compromised if Plaintiff does not contact him. The letter is dated April 15, 2021, references the claim number (3335179-1), the date of Plaintiff's injury (April 3, 2021), and identifies his employer as Defendant OM Hospitality Inc. ECF No. 3-2 at 2.
Page 3 of Exhibit 2 is another letter from Defendant Morris to Plaintiff. This letter is dated one day later, April 16, 2021. The letter indicates that it contains a Notice of Workers' Compensation Denial and provides a phone number if Plaintiff has questions. ECF No. 3-2 at 3.
Page 4 of Exhibit 2 is a “Claim Petition for Workers' Compensation, ” a Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry form. Plaintiff filled out this form indicating that on April 3, 2021, he injured himself changing sheets in a hotel room while employed as a housekeeper by OM Hospitality. ECF No. 3-2 at 4.
B. Legal Standards
The court must liberally construe the factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint because pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation omitted); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In addition, the court should “‘apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.'” Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)).
This Court must review Plaintiff's Complaint in accordance with the amendments promulgated in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). Although Plaintiff's claims do not appear to arise from an incarceration, the amendments to the PLRA codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1915 apply to non-incarcerated individuals who have been granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See Powell v. Hoover, 956 F.Supp. 564, 566 (M.D. Pa. 1997) (holding that federal in forma pauperis statute is not limited to prisoner suits); Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 276 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that non-prisoners have the option to proceed in forma pauperis), superseded on other grounds by Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 1997). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), Plaintiff is eligible for and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, his allegations must be reviewed in accordance with the directives provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Pertinent to the case at bar is the authority granted to federal courts for the sua sponte dismissal of claims in IFP proceedings. Specifically, § 1915(e), as amended, requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by persons who are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Hawkins v. Coleman Hall, C.C.F., 453 Fed.Appx. 208, 210 (3d Cir. 2011) (“An appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.”) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325). Thus, under § 1915(e)(2)(B), courts are “authorized to dismiss a claim as frivolous where ‘it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.'” O'Neal v. Remus, No. 09-14661, 2010 WL 1463011, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2010) (quoting Price v. Heyrman, No. 06-C-632, 2007 WL 188971, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327)).
A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6) if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556 (2007) (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The court must accept as true all allegations of the complaint and all reasonable factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir. 1985). “To the extent that a complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim lacks even an arguable basis in law, Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(d) both counsel dismissal.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328 (footnote omitted).
In reviewing complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a federal court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D'Agostino v. CECOM RDEC, 436 Fed.Appx. 70, 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999)). In addition to the complaint, courts may consider matters of public record and other matters of which a court may take judicial notice, court orders, and exhibits attached to the complaint when adjudicating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing 5A Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 1357; Chester Cnty Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 896 F.2d 808, 812 (3d Cir. 1990)).
C. Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 sets forth the requirements of form in pleadings. In particular, Rule 10(b) states that “[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). “The purpose of Rule 10 is to create clarity in pleadings, which allows a defendant and the Court to determine whether there are sufficient facts to support a claim entitling a plaintiff to relief.” Young v. Centerville Clinic, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-325, 2009 WL 4722820, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2009). In addition, “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count” if that would promote clarity.
Plaintiff must provide specific details of precisely how his civil rights were allegedly violated. Plaintiff should note that, in civil rights cases, more than conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action. Plaintiff should clearly describe how each named Defendant is involved in the alleged violation(s) of his civil rights. This description should include references to relevant dates, times, and locations. It should explain to the Court what happened by specifically describing each Defendant's behavior or action and how that behavior or action - or lack of action - resulted in the alleged violations.
Finally, the Court informs Plaintiff that it is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of his Workers' Compensation benefits. If this is the purpose of Plaintiff's civil action, the Court will recommend to the district judge that his Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (h)(3).
Here, the exhibits to the Complaint suggest that Plaintiff is attempting to appeal the denial of his application for Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend his Complaint to explain his assertion that his civil rights were violated because he “was discriminated against for employee benefits and medical coverage” by all named Defendants. Complaint, ECF No. 3 at 1.
III. CONCLUSION
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint, which was commenced in forma pauperis, be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as frivolous, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be given the opportunity to amend his claim for discrimination in the award of benefits, specifically to include facts concerning the alleged discrimination, and how all named Defendants were personally involved in the alleged discrimination. It is also recommended that Plaintiff be given 20 days from the date of an order adopting this Report and Recommendation to file an Amended Complaint should he wish to proceed with this civil action.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation to file objections. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.