Opinion
2:20-cv-2123-JTF-cgc
01-22-2021
SHAPARIS RICE, Plaintiff, v. SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 20, 2019, plaintiff Shaparis Rice filed a pro se complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. # 1 & 2.) This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on March 3, 2020. (D.E. # 7).
The instant case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge by Administrative Order pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-639. All pretrial matters within the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction are referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) for determination, and all other pretrial matters are referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) for report and recommendation.
The complaint was filed using the form for alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e to 2000e-17. Plaintiff alleges that the discriminatory conduct at issue is termination of his retaliation. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he was terminated for reporting a crime that was committed inside the jail facility at “201” poplar with officers assaulting an inmate. After reporting the crime to my attorney Blake Ballin the sheriff department fired me for reporting this criminal activity and for being the whistleblower.” Plaintiff seeks an unspecified compensatory and equitable damages.
The Court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action:
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or.
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the Court applies the standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, the Court ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.'“ Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . . are no more than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice' of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds' on which the claim rests.”).
It is RECOMMENDED that the instant complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Title VII prohibits retaliation against an employee because that employee has engaged in conduct protected by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (unlawful employment practices); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (retaliation). The instant complaint does not allege that Plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by Title VII and therefore fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
The Tennessee Public Protection Act prohibits termination solely for disclosing illegal activities. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-204 Because this is not a federal statute and there is not diversity of citizenship among the parties, the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim brought pursuant to this act. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1332.
The Court must also consider whether Plaintiff should be allowed to appeal this decision in forma pauperis, should he seek to do so. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit requires that all district courts in the circuit determine, in all cases where the appellant seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, whether the appeal would be frivolous. Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The test under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Id. It would be inconsistent for a district court to determine that a complaint should be dismissed prior to service on the defendants, but has sufficient merit to support an appeal in forma pauperis. See Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983). The same considerations that lead the Court to recommend dismissal of this case for failure to state a claim also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE SAID OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL