Cross v. Cross

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MELISSA MOODY CROSS PLAINTIFF v. CASE NO. 3:20-CV-00024 BSM KATRINA CROSS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Melissa Cross’s pro se complaint [Doc. No. 2] is dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To meet the 12(b)(6) standard, a complaint must allege sufficient facts to entitle the plaintiff to the relief

sought. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Cross’s complaint alleges employment discrimination, but she does not indicate whether her race, color, sex, religion, or national origin motivated any alleged employment actions. See Compl. ¶ 8. Fields v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 520 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir. 2008).

Further, Cross states that she has failed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), but the EEOC has not issued her a right- to-sue letter. Id. at ¶¶ 6–7. See Cottrill v. MFA, Inc., 443 F.3d 629, 634 (8th Cir. 2005) (right-to-sue letter required).

Finally, Cross complaint alleges that she was “harassed” and “scammed,” but she has provided no details to support these allegations. See Compl. ¶¶ 8–9. The tenet that all allegations in a complaint must be accepted as true does not apply to legal conclusions. Ashcroft, 566 U.S. at 663. Accordingly, Cross’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Her motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 1] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of February 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE