SIMMONS v. ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES, 2:13-cv-07589

Plaintiff Charles E. Simmons, Sr. filed an employment-discrimination complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act against his former employer, Allied Barton Security Services.
He sought to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted the court's employment-discrimination form, marking disability discrimination and retaliation, but supplied virtually no factual narrative.
The only attachment to the complaint was an EEOC "Notice of Right to Sue" dated October 21, 2013; no EEOC charge or factual statement was attached.
The Court applied the § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) screening standard (parallel to Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards) because plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status.
The Court found Simmons’s allegations to be conclusory (no description of the disability or facts showing discrimination) and concluded the complaint failed to state an ADA claim.
The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice but granted Simmons leave to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies (including attaching the EEOC charge or factual allegations).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a plausible ADA discrimination claim	Simmons marked disability discrimination and retaliation on the form complaint	(Not specified in opinion) Implicitly that the form markings are insufficient to state a claim	Dismissed: markings and conclusory statements are insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal; complaint fails to state a claim
Whether dismissal should be with or without leave to amend	N/A — plaintiff sought to proceed and presumably would cure defects if allowed	N/A — defendant did not oppose leave in opinion	Court granted leave to amend; dismissal without prejudice and plaintiff may file an amended complaint
Proper pleading standard for an IFP screening dismissal	Simmons proceeded pro se and IFP; factual allegations should be liberally construed but must be plausible	Court applies the Rule 12(b)(6)/Twombly-Iqbal standard even for pro se IFP plaintiffs	Court applied §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) standard and required more than labels and conclusions
Whether the plaintiff may rely on EEOC materials not attached	Plaintiff referenced attached documents but attached only the right-to-sue letter	Defendant did not present argument in opinion	Court instructed plaintiff to attach the EEOC charge or plead underlying facts in any amended complaint

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (discusses plausibility standard for pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (established the plausibility pleading framework)
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (§1915 screening uses Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2010) (courts disregard conclusory legal statements in pleading review)
Higgs v. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2011) (pro se complaints are liberally construed)
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (Twombly plausibility applies to employment discrimination claims)
Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (general assertions without factual detail are insufficient)
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (leave to amend should be given when defects can be cured)