Case Information
*1 CLERKS OFFICE LJ.S. DIST. COURI AT ROANOKE, VA FILED 22T 2 9 2212 IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT JULIA C. LERK FO R TH E W ESTER N D ISTR IC T O F V IR G IM A BY: . R O A N O K E DIV ISIO N DE LER . C ivil A ction N o. 7:12cv00465 C H A R LE S H EZ EK IA H D A N IEL S, JR .,
Plaintiff,
M EM O M N D U M O PIN IO N V. By: Sam uel G . W ilson
ROANOKE G LASS SH OP, lNC.,
United States District Judge D efendant.
Plaintiff, Charles Hezekiah Daniels, Jr., a Virginia citizen proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this civil action against his form er em ployer, Roanoke Glass Shop, lnc.
complaining about his employm ent and term ination. Daniels claims that Roanoke Glass term inated him for being late to work, but that other employees comm itted worse infractions and that there are other non-specified m otives for his term ination.D aniels does not allege the jurisdictional basis of his claims, and the court discerns no plausible federal claim to relief. Consequently, the court dismisses Daniels' complaint without prejudice.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedlzre 8(a)(2) requkes a isshort and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief'' Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plzrsuant to 28 U.S.C. j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a coul't shall ûiat any time'' dismiss an informapauperis complaint if it ççfails to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted.'' The court construes pro se com plaints liberally, imposing tûless stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'' See td..o (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even still, tûa complaint must contain sufficient factual m atter, accepted as true, to istate a claim of relief that is plausible on its face.''' A shcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv, 550 U.S. 544, 570
Case 7:12-cv-00465-SGW Document 4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 12 *2 (2007)); see also Atherton v. D.C. Oftke of Maypr, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (ttgWhile pro se complaintsj must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadingsl,) . . . even apro se com plainant m ust plead factual m atter that perm its the court to infer m ore than the mere possibility of misconduct.'') (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Daniels alleges that other employees of Roanoke Glass lied to his boss about Daniels out of jealousy and hatred, and that this led eventually to his termination. He alleges he had a m eeting w ith his em ployer to discuss the situation but that the alleged harassm ent did not cease, his pay w as cut, and his insurance benefits were denied. H is allegations give no hint of a discernible federal claim for relief 1et alone a plausible one. Rather, the court only is able to conclude that Daniels is unhappy with his former employer regarding the conditions of his em ploym ent and his term ination. W hile the pleading rules do not im pose an exacting standard on Daniels, he m ust offer som e foothold on which Roanoke G lass could base an answer or on which the court could base a judgment.Accordingly, the court will dismiss Daniels' complaint 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a g aim. 1 without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. j EN TER : O ctober 9, 2012. v ..' , . ' ''' . ,',' . [*] . U NITED STA TES D ISTRICT JU DG E l M oreover , the federal courts are courts of limitedjurisdiction. çç-l-hey possess only that power authorized by (the United States) Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. lt is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this Iimited jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contral'y rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.'' Kpkkonen v. Guardian Life lns. Co. of Am., 51 1 U.S. 375, 377 ( 1994) (citations omitted).
2 Case 7:12-cv-00465-SGW Document 4 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 13