United States District Court, D. Connecticut
KEITH B. CAMPBELL
HRH HILL INTERNATIONAL, et al.
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on an initial review of a
Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
filed by self-represented plaintiff Keith B. Campbell
(“plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth below,
plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
[Doc. #2] is GRANTED. However, on review,
the Court recommends that the Complaint [Doc. #1] be
DISMISSED, with prejudice, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
filed this lawsuit on a form “Complaint for Employment
Discrimination” and asserts that he is bringing his
claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. See Doc. #1 at 1-2. Plaintiff names
as defendants “HRH Hill International” and
“TDX Construction Corp.” Id. He asserts
that the acts complained of include failure to hire, unlawful
termination, and “other acts.” Id. at 2.
allegations of plaintiff's complaint are incoherent and
incomprehensible. For example, where the form requests that
plaintiff state the date of termination of his employment, he
states: “Feb. 8th, 2001. Where the situation
escalated, into an engineering technician had to be killed,
for overstepping the state color, of an engineer, DEP,
Kingston, NY 12401.” Id. at 2
(sic). Plaintiff includes a separate page in his
Complaint, stating: “TDX/Becom Joint Venture - that the
adverse / of leaving a large company as HRH, dismissed on the
terms given: on: (a) Page (3)-(D), cause of action(s) of an:
Engineering Ambassador, N.S.P.E., Chapter 15, in Foot Notes,
Para. (a) & (b); and the facts surrounding the claim - in
Ques. 6 & Ques. 7, subparts: (a) & (b).” Doc.
#1 at 4 (sic). Another separate page states: “-But the
new owner clause, was discretely pulled out, by: A particular
special group - fraternity - - who fraudulently
seized.” Id. at 5 (sic).
the form inquires whether charges were filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
plaintiff checks this box, and writes in: “Even to
Rent/Purchase a living space: Adaptable to: Home &
Office/Practice - as an engineer & doctor: in biomedical
engineering continuing from New York Univ. Faculty
dept.” Id. at 6 (sic). Attached to the
Complaint is a print-out from the EEOC website containing
information regarding the EEOC's powers. See Doc. #1-1.
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees
and costs, along with a financial affidavit. [Doc. #2].
Plaintiff's motion contains numerous extraneous and
confusing statements. However, it does appear to state that
plaintiff has not been employed since 2001, that he has been
receiving Social Security disability benefits since 2003, and
that he owns neither real property nor an automobile. See
generally Doc. #2. Plaintiff also asserts that he is
homeless, and that he has $979.43 in monthly obligations. See
Doc. #2 at 3, 7. This is sufficient information to establish
that plaintiff is “unable to pay” the ordinary
filing fees required by the Court. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. #2].
Initial Review of Complaint
Standard of Review
determination of whether an in forma pauperis plaintiff
should be permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. §1915
involves two separate considerations. The Court must first
determine whether the plaintiff may proceed with the action
without prepaying the filing fee in full. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a). The Court has already addressed that issue.
Second, section 1915 provides that “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that” the case “is frivolous or malicious”
or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
(ii). In the interest of efficiency, the Court reviews
complaints under this provision shortly after filing to
determine whether the plaintiff has stated a cognizable,
Court construes complaints filed by self-represented
plaintiffs liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court exercises caution in dismissing a case
under section 1915(e) because a claim that the Court
perceives as likely to be unsuccessful is not necessarily
frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329 (1989).
In addition, “unless the court can rule out any
possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended
complaint would succeed in stating a claim[, ]” the
Court will permit “a pro se plaintiff who is proceeding
in forma pauperis” to file an amended complaint that
attempts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 796 (2d Cir.
complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be
granted. To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a
complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim that is
“plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 ...