PULUKCHU v. HADCO METALL TRADING CO
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WILLIAM H. YOHN, JR ON 8/26/2013. 8/27/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREP.(sg, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION
NICKOLAY PULUKCHU
v.
NO. 13-4839
HADCO METALL TRADING CO
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST
YOHN, J.
z..ft,
2013
Plaintiff Nickolay Pulukchu brings this action against the
Hadco Metall Trading Co., pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
2000e et
~
He seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.
§
The Court
will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss his complaint without prejudice to hi' filing an amended
complaint.
I.
FACTS
Plaintiff filed this action against Hadco Metall Trading Co
("Hadco"), his former employer, 1 using the Court's form complaint
for employment discrimination.
By marking the appropriate
locations on the form complaint, plaintiff indicated that Hadco
discriminated against him based on his religion and national
origin, failed to accommodate his religion, and subjected him to
unequal terms and conditions of employment.
However, in
describing the facts of his case, plaintiff made no mention of
his national origin or religion.
Instead, he indicated that many
"bad [things]1I happened during his employment with the defendant,
lPlaintiff's in forma pauperis application reflects that he
is no longer employed.
1
apparently because he was subjected to unsafe conditions that
caused him injury.
Plaintiff made a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and received a Notice of Right to Sue Letter on July
I, 2013.
He subsequently initiated this action.
He does not
specify the relief he seeks.
II .
STANDARD OF REVIEW2
The Court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because he has satisfied the criteria set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) applies.
That provision requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if,
among other things, it fails to state a claim.
complaint fails to state a claim under
§
Whether a
1915(e) is governed by
the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), see Tourscher v. McCullough,
184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face."
(2009)
Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(quotations omitted).
Although any factual allegations
must be taken as true, courts evaluating the viability of a
complaint should "disregard legal conclusions and recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements./I
Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d
2The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2
§
1331.
Cir. 2010)
(quotations omitted).
Although the Court must
construe plaintiff's allegations liberally because he is
proceeding pro
~,
Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d
Cir. 2011), he must recite more than "labels and conclusions" to
state a claim.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) .
III. DISCUSSION
The Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice to
Plaintif(rfiling 1an amended complaint. To state a claim under
.
A
Title VII, plaintiff must allege at least some facts supporting
his allegations of employment discrimination.
Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,211 (3d Cir. 2009)
See Fowler v. UMPC
("[T]he plausibility
paradigm announced in Twombly applies with equal force to
analyzing the adequacy of claims of employment discrimination.")
(quotations omitted).
Here, plaintiff has indicated, by marking
certain locations on the form complaint, that the defendant
discriminated against him based on his religion and national
origin, but he failed to state any facts to support those
assertions.
As the complaint does not contain anything more than
conclusory allegations of discrimination, plaintiff has failed to
state a Title VII claim.
See Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671
F.3d 1188, 1193 (lOth Cir. 2012)
("Plaintiff's general assertions
of discrimination and retaliation, without any details whatsoever
of events leading up to her termination, are insufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss.").
Furthermore, in the event that
plaintiff is attempting to assert state law claims against his
3
employer based on injuries he sustained at work, it is not clear
whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction over those claims
because the complaint does not allege the parties' citizenship.3
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) i Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592
F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir. 2010).
Although the complaint does not state a claim as currently
pled, the Court will give plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint in the event that he can cure the above deficiencies.
See Grayson v. Mayyiew State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir.
2002).
In his amended complaint, plaintiff should state the
facts that support his claims, or attach a copy of the claim he
filed with the EEOC containing the relevant facts underlying his
allegations of employment discrimination.
He should also allege
the parties' citizenship if he is invoking this Court's diversity
jurisdiction.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's complaint will be
dismissed without prejudice to his filing an amended complaint.
An appropriate order follows.
3An individual is a citizen of the state where he is
domiciled, meaning the state where he is physically present and
intends to remain.
See Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340
344 (3d Cir. 2011). A corporation is "a citizen of every State
and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the
State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business," 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (1), while "the citizenship of an
LLC is determined by the citizenship of its members.
Zambelli
Fireworks Mfg., 592 F.3d at 420.
1I
1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
