AKEELIA ADAMS-SMITH v. LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
No. 4:24-cv-00711-PLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
March 11, 2025
This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Akeelia Adams-Smith‘s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] and Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 3]. The Court grants Plaintiff‘s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs, and waives the filing fee. Additionally, the Court provides Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint on the enclosed form and denies without prejudice her motion to appoint counsel.
I. Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
Plaintiff filed a pro se Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. [ECF No. 2] In her application, Plaintiff states her expenses exceed her income and that she has only $200 in savings, which is already earmarked for paying bills. Having reviewed the Application to Proceed and supporting financial information, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable
II. Initial Review of the Complaint
A. Legal Standard on Initial Review
Because the Court has granted Plaintiff‘s Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, her complaint is subject to initial review under
To sufficiently state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
B. The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action against the Social Security Administration (“Agency“), alleging employment discrimination and hostile work environment based on race and disability. In the “Statement of Claims” section of her complaint, she asserts: “I have been discriminated against due to my disability and hostile work environment. . . . I am suing for damages. I have over [a] million in medical bills[.]” Beyond these conclusory statements, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations. Instead, Plaintiff appends an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Decision affirming the Agency‘s finding of no discrimination.
The Decision reflects that Plaintiff worked as a Claims Specialist in the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI“)/Title XVI unit at the Agency‘s Florissant, Missouri office. Plaintiff‘s claim of race and disability discrimination arose from events on October 16, 2019, when her supervisor assigned her five SSI redeterminations to complete that day. Plaintiff was scheduled to interview claimants from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., after which she would have “desk time” to complete other work. After completing four interviews, Plaintiff informed her supervisor that the process was taking longer than expected and requested assistance with the interviews or additional “desk time.” In response, the supervisor reassigned her remaining redetermination and extended the deadline for her afternoon tasks but did not extend her “desk time.” Plaintiff alleged employer discriminated against her on the bases of her race and disability by denying her sufficient time to complete her workload. The EEOC Decision states that the supervisor had assigned the same number of redeterminations to all employees in the same position that day and allotted them the same amount of time to complete the work.
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff informed another supervisor that she needed to leave early due to an allergic reaction. The supervisor observed Plaintiff experiencing difficulties with her motor functions. Following this incident, management noted other concerns, including slurred speech and confusion. Plaintiff also missed several days of work due to an illness.
On October 11, 2019, the supervisor issued a letter expressing concerns about Plaintiff‘s health and ability to perform her job. Plaintiff perceived the letter as containing racial stereotypes and defamatory allegations. The supervisor claimed to be unaware of Plaintiff‘s speech impediment. While Plaintiff did not assert that the Agency had denied her reasonable accommodations, she argued that the October 11 letter was inappropriate considering her disabilities.
C. Discussion
Liberally construing Plaintiff‘s allegations, the complaint fails to state a plausible claim to relief. Plaintiff cannot rely solely on the EEOC Decision to supply the necessary factual allegations for her claims. Federal pleading standards require that a complaint contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While a court may consider
Further, the complaint does not comply with Local Rule 2.06, which provides: “All actions brought by self-represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided forms where applicable.” For these reasons, Plaintiff‘s complaint is subject to dismissal. However, considering Plaintiff‘s self-represented status, the Court will allow her to file an amended complaint in accordance with the instructions below.
D. Instructions for Amending the Complaint
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.06, Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint on the enclosed form. The amended complaint must include specific facts supporting Plaintiff‘s claims of discrimination based on race and disability. Plaintiff should describe what actions the Agency took that she believes were discriminatory, when those actions occurred, and how they were connected to her race or disability. If Plaintiff alleges a hostile work environment, she must specify what conduct created the alleged hostile environment, who was involved, and how it affected her employment.
Additionally, Plaintiff should clearly identify the legal basis for her claims (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Rehabilitation Act) and attach all supporting documentation, including her original charge of discrimination and the subsequent administrative decisions. However, as explained above, these documents cannot substitute for factual allegations in the complaint itself.
III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [ECF No. 3] Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Watson v. Moss, 619 F.2d 775, 776 (8th Cir. 1980); Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case“). Rather, a district court may appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a non-frivolous claim . . . and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court considers relevant factors such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).
Having considered these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Neither the factual nor legal issues in this case appear complex. The Court may entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail to Plaintiff a copy of the Court‘s Employment Discrimination Complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on the Court-provided form and in compliance with the Court‘s instructions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff‘s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff‘s failure to timely comply with the Order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
Dated this 11th day of March, 2025
PATRICIA L. COHEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE