Weathers v. Aerotek, Inc., 2:17-cv-00683

Pro se plaintiff Larry Wayne Weathers (Kentucky) filed to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted a short “Supplemental” complaint naming Aerotek, Inc. and seeking $20 million punitive and $900,000 compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The complaint consists of a few sentences referencing two closed Fair Credit Reporting Act class actions and an 1991 psychiatric treatment record (with full SSN) attached as an exhibit.
Plaintiff alleges disability diagnoses but provides no factual allegations connecting Aerotek to any discriminatory act or denial of services under the ADA.
The Magistrate Judge granted in forma pauperis status, directed redaction of all but the last four digits of plaintiff’s SSN on the exhibit, and performed the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, concluding the pleading lacked the factual content required by Rule 8(a) and by governing pleading standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint states an ADA claim	Weathers asserts he is entitled to punitive and compensatory damages under the ADA due to diagnosed disability	(Not addressed substantively in opinion — complaint contains no factual allegations against Aerotek)	Dismissed for failure to state a claim; complaint lacks facts linking Aerotek to discrimination under Title II of the ADA
Adequacy of pro se pleading under Rule 8(a)	Complaint is a “Supplemental” filing and cites diagnoses and related cases as basis for relief	Defendant did not offer responsive legal argument in the report; court applied Rule 8(a) standards	Complaint fails Rule 8(a); labels and conclusions without factual enhancement are insufficient
Application of § 1915(e)(2) screening	Plaintiff sought to proceed without prepaying fees	N/A	Court must sua sponte dismiss frivolous or noncognizable claims; recommended dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)
Privacy/redaction of sensitive information	Plaintiff attached treatment record with full SSN	N/A	Clerk directed to redact all but last four digits of plaintiff’s SSN on the exhibit (Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2)

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (explaining § 1915’s purpose and the need to screen frivolous in forma pauperis suits)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous and malicious standard for pro se filings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to be facially plausible)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint cannot rely on mere labels and conclusions)
16630 Southfield Ltd. P’ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2013) (discussing Rule 8 pleading demands)
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying 12(b)(6) standards to § 1915 screenings)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2005) (elements of an ADA Title II claim)
Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, 862 F.2d 570 (6th Cir. 1988) (ADA/Section 504 discrimination standards)