United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jasmine Williams has filed a pro se complaint in
this matter against Affordable Dentures, Inc., alleging she
was unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against in
connection with her employment. (Doc. No. 1.) She alleges she
began working for Affordable Dentures in December 2015, and
that after she transferred to an Ohio location she was
mistreated and overworked by her regional managers and given
no increase in pay. She complained to the president of the
company about her situation in September 2017, and he granted
her an immediate pay raise, but her regional manager
allegedly refused to implement it and she was terminated from
her job for no reason in January 2018. Although the plaintiff
does not clearly allege specific legal claims or seek any
specific relief in her complaint, her complaint indicates she
alleges claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(See Doc. No. 1 at 1.)
plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. No. 2.) That application is granted. For
the reasons stated below, however, her complaint is dismissed
pursuant to28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), federal
district courts are required under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B) to review all in forma pauperis
complaints filed in federal court, and to dismiss before
service any such complaint that the court determines is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See Hill v.
Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted when it lacks "sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Id. at 470-71 (holding
that the dismissal standard articulated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and [Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) "governs dismissals
for failure to state a claim" under
plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed under
§1915(e)(2)(B) because, even liberally construed, it
fails to allege any plausible federal claim under either
§ 1983 or Title VII.
VII provides that it is unlawful for an employer "to
fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII's retaliation provision provides
that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against
an employee "because he has opposed any practice made an
unlawful employment practice by [Title VII]." 42 U.S.C.
plaintiffs allegations do not support a plausible inference
that Affordable Dentures terminated her or otherwise
discriminated against her in connection with her employment
"because of a characteristic protected under Title VII
(i.e., her race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin). Nor do they support a plausible inference that she
was terminated because she opposed an employment practice
that Title VII makes unlawful. While the plaintiffs
allegations may suggest she was treated unfairly or
wrongfully terminated from her employment, they are
insufficient to support a federal Title VII claim.
plaintiffs allegations are also insufficient to suggest any
plausible claim for relief under §1983. Section 1983
prohibits constitutional violations by state actors. To prove
a violation of section 1983, a plaintiff must plead and prove
that she has been deprived of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and that the
defendant allegedly depriving her of those rights acted
"under color of state law." See Waters v. City
of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353, 359-60 (6th Cir.2001).
Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting that Affordable
Dentures is a state actor, or that it deprived her of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
See Bell v. Management & Training Corp., 122
Fed.Appx. 219, 222 (6th Cir. 2005) (private
employers are not state actors under § 1983 unless their
actions can fairly be seen as "state action").
for the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs complaint is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for
failure to state allege any plausible federal claim. This
dismissal is without prejudice to any state-law claim the
plaintiff may properly assert on the alleged facts. The Court
further certifies, pursuant to 28 ...