United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
has moved to amend his previously dismissed complaint. The
proposed amended complaint alleges conspiracy and statutory
violations of Title VII (Count I), Sections 1981 and 1983
(Count II), and Sections 1985 and 1986 (Count III) against
various state agencies and individual defendants in
supervisory roles at those agencies. Plaintiff also alleges
negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IV). All of
plaintiff's claims stem from allegations that he was
subjected to discrimination based on his race, color, and
national origin. For the following reasons, plaintiff's
motion to amend will be denied as futile.
court previously granted defendants' motion to dismiss
all of plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim.
Nevertheless, the court permitted plaintiff to move to amend
his complaint if he could allege in good faith plausible
race, color, or nationality-based claims of discrimination.
In other words, the court requested argument from plaintiff
demonstrating that amendment of his complaint would not be
futile. Plaintiff, without discussion, proffers that his
proposed amended complaint will cure the previously cited
deficiencies, but the court finds that plaintiff has again
failed to draw a causal connection to his race, color, or
national origin that could create a plausible inference of
is an African American who was born in Somalia. He has a
Bachelor of Science in business administration. Between July
2000 and the filing of the instant complaint, plaintiff was
employed by the Department of Children and Families
(“DCF”), the Department of Social Services
(“DSS”), the Department of Economic and Community
Development (“DECD”), and the Department of
Housing (“DOH”). Plaintiff asserts that over that
time he applied for at least twenty various job positions for
which he was the most qualified candidate, yet he contends
that defendants hired less qualified “non-basis
suffered from a gambling addiction. He printed lottery
tickets for himself, apparently without purchasing them, from
a store that he owned. Because of the delinquency, the State
Lottery Commission caused plaintiff to be criminally
prosecuted in 2008. He was charged with Second Degree Larceny
and subsequently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor larceny
charge. A letter detailing the conviction was placed in his
personnel file. Plaintiff asserts that this letter negatively
impacted his applications with respect to the twenty
alternative positions for which he applied and interviewed.
Plaintiff alleges that after his conviction he was subjected
to increased scrutiny, such as background checks and
maintains that defendants have subjected him to various acts
of discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national
origin. Nevertheless, the proposed amended complaint once
again fails to allege any facts that give rise to an
inference of discrimination; or to allege that similarly
situated employees outside plaintiff's protected class
were treated more favorably. Indeed, the proposed complaint
does not mention any comparators with similar criminal
convictions. Instead, plaintiff's complaint consists
mostly of labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of
the elements of his various causes of action. See
E.E.O.C. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
768 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Twombly and
Iqbal require that a complaint support the
viability of its claims by pleading sufficient nonconclusory
factual matter to set forth a claim that is plausible on its
face.”). To make matters worse, plaintiff's list of
legal conclusions extends seventy-one pages. It is not a
short and plain statement.
a discrimination complaint need not allege each element of a
prima facie case, it must assert facts sufficient to render
its claims plausible. Id. at 254. Here, after
setting aside the repeated conclusory statements that are no
more than recitals of the elements of a cause of action or
“labels and conclusions, ” the allegations of the
proposed amended complaint fail to create a plausible
inference of liability. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-681 (2009).
allegations are compatible with and can be explained by
increased scrutiny associated with his criminal conviction
rather than by invidious discrimination, as crimes of
dishonesty are rarely accompanied by promotion to a more
supervisory role. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 567 (2007) (finding complaint did
not suggest an illicit accord because it was plausibly
explained by lawful behavior). The proposed amended complaint
has not nudged plaintiff's claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible. See id. at 547.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to amend will be denied.
foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to amend is denied.
The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
 See, for example, paragraph 391 of
plaintiff's proposed amended complaint: “That the
individual Defendants all contributed to the ongoing and
continuously retaliatory, discriminatory, harassing, and
contributed to the ongoing and continuously discriminatory,
harassing, retaliatory and hostile work environment and each
intentionally, negligently, with malice or deliberate
indifference, violated Plaintiff's rights secured by 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 to be free from
discrimination on the basis of race, color, retaliation,
harassment, and a hostile work environment, and the
Plaintiff's ancestry, including but not limited to his
employment relationship, by ...