Allen v. Corinth Coca-Cola Jonesboro

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: December 2, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00184
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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 pauperis, 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.

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. OPu4Loll f. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge _ a Mecembu

-2.