Curry v. City of Mansfield et al, No. 1:2021cv01572 - Document 9 (N.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the same reasons the district court dismissed her recently-filed case, Case No. 1:21 CV 1455, plaintiff's complaint in this case against the City, Mayer Theaker, Dave Remy, Bob Coker, and Personnel Direct or Mr. Kuntz is dismissed pursuant to the Court's authority established in Apple v. Glenn. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. In light of this ruling, plaintiff's remaining pending motions are denied as moot. Further, in light of plaintiff's demonstrated persistence in seeking to sue the City and City officials and employees regarding employment with the City, she is urged to consult with a lawyer before filing any further lawsuits. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 11/22/2021. re 1 . (M,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Curry v. City of Mansfield et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Carline Curry, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:21 CV 1572 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT V. City of Mansfield,et al., MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. This is another lawsuit filed by pro se plaintiff Carline Curry against the City of Mansfield and various City officials and employees alleging unlawful employment discrimination in violation ofTitleVIIand42U.S.C.§§ 1981 and 1983. This is a fee-paid action. Plaintiffhas been prohibited fi*om proceeding in forma pauperis in this district in civil actions alleging employment discrimination against the City and City officials and employees due to the munerous prior lawsuits she filed, repeatedly over many years, which have been summarily dismissed. See e.g., Curry v. Donald Trump, et al.. Case No. 1: 19 CV 2984, 2020 WL 1940844(N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2020); Curry v. City ofMansfield, et al.. Case No. 12 CV 276, 2012 WL 2367373 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2012). In this case,plaintiffagain sues the City and City officials and employees alleging unlawful Dockets.Justia.com employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (Doc. No. 1.)' This time,in her briefcomplaint,she alleges she was unlawfully discriminated against because she was not"given a[n] opportunity" or interview for ajob opening in February 2020 for which she contends she was qualified"[pjrobably because[she had]filed litigation againstthe City in the Past." (Jd. at 1.) In addition to her complaint,she has filed a motion for back pay and the reliefrequested in the complaint(Doc. No. 5), for summary judgment(Doc. No. 6), and for the Court to schedule court dates(Doc. No. 7). The Court finds that this action, like plaintiffs numerous other prior actions, must be summarily dismissed. Federal courts"may,at any time,sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure when the allegations of[the] complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, imsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion." Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Sua sponte dismissal ofan even fee-paid complaint is appropriate without affording the plaintiffan opportunity to amend where the plaintiffs claims"lack the legal plausibility necessary to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction." Id. at 480. As plaintiffhas clearly been apprised before,and mostrecently in Curry v. City ofMansfield, et al. Case No. 1: 21 CY 1455 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 2021), she cannot make out viable federal employment discrimination claims under Title VII and §§ 1981 and 1983 simply on the basis of allegations that the City failed to hire her for certain openjobs. Rather,she must allege specific facts 'She sues the City, Mayer Theaker, Dave Remy,Bob Coker,and Persormel Director Mr. Kuntz "or His Replacement." {Id.) -2- in the body of her complaint sufficient to give rise to plausible inferences that each defendant engaged in conduct constituting unlawful discrimination under the federal laws under which she seeks relief. See id., slip op. at 6-7. Plaintiffs persistent contention that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination because she was not given an interview or hired for an open position with the City lacks the legal plausibility necessary to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Lillard v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716 (6th Cir. 1996) (court is not required to accept summary allegations or unwarranted legal conclusions in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief). Accordingly, for the same reasons the district court dismissed her recently-filed case, Case No. 1: 21 CV 1455, plaintiffs complaint in this case against the City, Mayer Theaker, Dave Remy, Bob Coker, and Personnel Director Mr. Kuntz is dismissed pursuant to the Court's authority established in Apple v. Glenn. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. In light of this ruling, plaintiffs remaining pending motions are denied as moot. Further, in light of plaintiffs demonstrated persistence in seeking to sue the City and City officials and employees regarding employment with the City, she is urged to consult with a lawyer before filing any further lawsuits. IT IS SO ORDERED. DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DIS -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
