Facts
- Marc William Allen, a former employee of Corinth Coca-Cola, was demoted and replaced by a younger, less experienced black employee after he earned excessive overtime. [lines="20-22"].
- After informing his younger manager that he had contacted the EEOC, Allen was subsequently fired. [lines="24-25"].
- Allen submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, indicating his reliance on social security income. [lines="12-16"].
- The Court identified that Allen's complaint lacked specific details, including his race, age, job description, and experience, which are necessary to evaluate his case. [lines="30-32"].
- Allen included his EEOC right to sue letter with his complaint but did not attach his EEOC charge of discrimination. [lines="27-28"].
Issues
- Whether Allen's complaint for employment discrimination adequately illustrates the necessary facts, including his race, age, job description, and experience. [lines="30-32"].
- Whether the Court should appoint counsel for Allen given the complexity of the law and facts involved in his case. [lines="49-50"].
Holdings
- The Court requires Allen to file an amended complaint with more specific details by January 3, 2024, or else it will dismiss the case without prejudice. [lines="36-40"].
- The Court denied Allen's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, concluding that the case's law and facts are not complex enough at this stage to warrant such assistance. [lines="43-50"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Case 3:24-cv-00184-DPM Document 5 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MARC WILLIAM ALLEN PLAINTIFF v. No. 3:24-cv-184-DPM CORINTH COCA-COLA JONESBORO DEFENDANT
ORDER
1. Allen's application to proceed in forma pauperzs, Doc. 1, is granted. He reports living on social security income. 2. The Court must screen his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Allen, a former employee of Corinth Coca-Cola, says he was demoted and replaced with a less experienced and younger black employee after earning too much overtime. When Allen told his younger, less experienced black manager that he had inquired with the EEOC, he was fired. Doc. 2. He helpfully attached his EEOC right to sue letter, but not his EEOC charge of discrimination, to his complaint.
3. The Court needs more information to evaluate his case. Allen hasn't identified his race, age, job description, and experience. He says his manager and the person who replaced him are younger and less experienced, but does not plead specific facts. The EEOC charge, in particular, would provide helpful background.
*2 Case 3:24-cv-00184-DPM Document 5 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2 4. Allen must file an amended complaint with more details by
3 January 2024. If he does not, the Court will dismiss his case without prejudice. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2).
5. Allen's motion to appoint counsel, Doc. 3, is denied without prejudice. This case is young, but he has adequately represented himself so far. And the law and facts here aren't so complex as to warrant appointing counsel at this stage. Plummer v . Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996).
So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge
-2-