Flores v. Hostel Hi-Madison

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 14, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-0702
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DIS"I`RICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

MAY l ll 2013 _ Clerk, U.S. District and Xavl€r Fl@r€$, g bankruptcy Courts

Plaintiff, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. ) ./ Hostel Hi~l'\/Iadison el al., ) \' 3

)

Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintift`s pro se complaint and application to proceed informer pauperz`s. The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(e)(ZZ)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

Plaintiff, a homeless individual who submitted more than 30 cryptic complaints within the first two weeks of March alone, sues a hostel and the Madison Police Department in l\/Iadison, Wisconsin, purportedly under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 el seq. He states that he "was removed from the premises when the manager . . . deny [sic] me service then called the Madison Police department to have me removed." Compl. at l~ 2. Plaintiff seeks $l million in damages ]d. at 2.

A plaintiff s "allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Bell/ll'lantz`c Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted); see

Aktieser'skabef AF 2]. Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("We

have never accepted ‘legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegéltions’ because a complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.") (quoting Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Plaintiffdoes not allege that he was removed because of a disability and, therefore, has stated no facts to support an ADA claim. Even if he had, such a claim is properly brought in the judicial district where the alleged unlawful practice occurred or where the relevant records are maintained and administered, which appears in this case to be the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. See 42 U.S.C. § 121 17(a) (incorporating Title VII's enforcement procedures set forth at 42

U.S.C. § ZUOOe-S(fj(_°>). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

15‘/

Date: May , 2013

United Stat s District Judge