Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01796-BNB.
August 25, 2010
ORDER TO FILE SECOND AMENDED TITLE VII COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Veronica Mwangi, initiated this action by submitting an Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on July 23, 2010. She filed pro se a Title VII Complaint on July 29, 2010. The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to commence a civil action on July 29, 2010, and ordered Ms. Mwangi to cure certain deficiencies. Specifically, the Court ordered Ms. Mwangi to file a complaint on the court-approved form completing the sections for jurisdiction, administrative procedure, and request for relief.
Ms. Mwangi filed an amended Title VII Complaint on August 20, 2010. Ms. Hartley has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court must construe the amended Complaint liberally because Ms. Mwangi is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall , 935 F.2d at 1110. The Court has reviewed the amended Complaint and finds that it is deficient.
Ms. Mwangi requests monetary relief against her former supervisor, Defendant McKeon, for the Defendant's alleged violation of Ms. Mwangi's rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discharge any individual . . . because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII, however, does not impose individual liability on supervisors. See Haynes v. Williams , 88 F.3d 898, 901 (10th Cir. 1996) ("[W]e agree with the majority view that, taken as a whole, the language and structure of amended Title VII continue to reflect the legislative judgment that statutory liability is appropriately borne by employers, not individual supervisors."). Supervisory employees may only be sued in their official capacities in a Title VII action as a means to sue the employer under an agency theory. See Sauers v. Salt Lake County , 1 F.3d 1122, 1125 (10th Cir. 1993). Ms. Mwangi does not appear to be seeking relief against her employer, All Generations Home Health Care, LLC.
Ms. Mwangi also names Rita Lynne as a Defendant in the caption of her amended Title VII Complaint, but does not make any factual allegations against Defendant Lynne in the body of the pleading. In order to state a claim in federal court, Ms. Mwangi "must explain what each defendant did to [her]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed [her]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated." Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents , 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Ms. Mwangi is reminded that Defendant Lynne is not subject to personal liability in this Title VII action. See Haynes, 88 F.3d at 901; Sauers, 1 F.3d at 1125. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Veronica Mwangi, file within thirty (30) days from the date of this order a second amended Title VII Complaint that complies with the directives in this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the Court mail to Ms. Mwangi, together with a copy of this order, two copies of the following form to be used in submitting the second amended Title VII Complaint: Title VII Complaint. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, if Ms. Mwangi fails to file a second amended complaint that complies with this order within the time allowed, the amended Title VII Complaint and the action will be dismissed without further notice.