Jordan v. Weinstein

Opinion

§EE.=.E§@

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLUMBIA _AUG l 1 2017 .S. D'str'\ct & Bankrupf€y griggs ttier tth District of Columbla Consuelo Jordan, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ') v. ) Civil Action No. 17-1473 CUNA) ' ) EEOC, Washington Field Office, ) Acting Director Mindy Weinstein, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii). Under that statute, the Court is required to dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident who has sued the Acting Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Cornmission’s Washington Field Office (“EEOC”). Compl. Caption. The complaint is not a model of clarity, but it appears from the attachments that this action arises from EEOC’s handling of plaintiffs employment discrimination complaint against the Executive Offlce for United States Attorneys. “[N]o cause of action against the EEOC exists for challenges to its processing of a claim.” sz'th v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Rather, “Congress intended the private right of action . . . under which an aggrieved employee may bring a Title VII action directly against his or her employer [] to serve as the remedy for any

improper handling of a discrimination charge by the EEOC.” ]d., citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

5(t)(1). Therefore, this case will be dismissed A separate Order accompanies this

%…r>d~

Date: August l\ , 2017 United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion.