Opinion
No. 02-4065-SAC
October 23, 2002.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The case comes before the court on the plaintiff's letter motion (Dk. 14), asking the court to reconsider its order docketed on August 2, 2002, (Dk. 12), that dismissed the plaintiff's federal employment discrimination claims for failure to file this action within ninety days of his receipt of the right-to-sue letter and that declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims and dismissed the same without prejudice. The court will treat the plaintiff's letter motion as a motion to alter and amend filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff did not serve his motion on the defendants, and the court will rule without the benefit of the defendants' response.
In its order dismissing this action, the court observed:
The EEOC's right-to-sue letter is dated February 1, 2000, and the plaintiff concedes in his written response that he received this letter on February 5, 2000. The ninety-day period expired on May 5, 2000, but the instant lawsuit was not filed until April 25, 2002, almost two years later. In his response to the show cause order, the plaintiff says he mailed the right-to-sue letter, "a notice asking for a court appointed attorney," and "the proper papers" to the clerk's office before the statute of limitations expired. (Dk. 11). The plaintiff, however, submits nothing in proof of this bare assertion. More importantly, the plaintiff never says that he filed any complaint on or before May 5, 2000. Merely forwarding a right-to-sue letter and other "proper papers" to the clerk's office is not commencing a lawsuit. Absent any proof that the plaintiff's current action is timely commenced or that the doctrines of waiver, estoppel or equitable tolling apply here, the court must dismiss the plaintiff's claims for relief under Title VII and ADEA.
(Dk. 12, ¶. 3-4). The plaintiff in his motion to reconsider relies again on his bare assertion that he mailed the right to sue letter to the court and offers nothing that is substantively new. The plaintiff does add: "I do not have a certified mail stub. So my package conveniently got lost. There is no reason for the court to mistreat it's negro citizens like this." (Dk. 14). What the plaintiff labels as mistreatment is the court uniformly enforcing the rule of law subject to equitable exceptions in support of which the plaintiff offers no proof. Even assuming the plaintiff had offered some proof of mailing, the plaintiff would still have to overcome the serious hurdle of explaining why he did nothing for nearly two years and only after that period took the steps necessary for "filing" a lawsuit. The facts here simply do not support the plaintiff's plea for equitable relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dk. 14) is denied.