McCastle v. Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt

E.D. Arkansas

McCastle v. Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt

DecidedNovember 16, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00935

StatusUnknown

This text of McCastle v. Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt (McCastle v. Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCastle v. Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

SAMMIE MCCASTLE PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 4:23-cv-935-DPM

RREAF RESIDENTIAL RIVER POINT APT. DEFENDANT

ORDER 1. McCastle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted. His modest monthly expenses exceed his social security benefits. 2. The Court must screen McCastle’s complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court’s rules require a short and plain statement of facts that show a plausible violation of some particular law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). McCastle claims he was fired in violation of Title VII because of his race and age. Doc. 2. Although he offers no specifics in his complaint, the Court can identify some details from the attached EEOC charge of discrimination. McCastle, an older service manager on Rreaf Residential’s maintenance team, says that Robert Arnold asked him if caring for the sizable property took a toll on someone his age. He says he was then written up for his performance.

McCastle has since filed a second charge of discrimination with the EEOC and noticed the Court. Doc. 5. In that charge, he says he was suspended and ultimately fired following a “tenant accusation.” He adds that his job was advertised weeks before his termination, implying the alleged accusation was pretext for discrimination. This second charge says Rreaf Residential has 100-200 employees, while his first charge says it has less than 15. 3. Read in the light most favorable to McCastle, his complaint and attachments state a plausible claim of age discrimination. McPherson v. Brennan, 888 F.3d 1002, 1003-1004 (8th Cir. 2018). 4. McCastle’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). 5. The Clerk must prepare summons for Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt. The Clerk must provide copies of the summons along with the complaint, and this Order to the Marshal, who must serve process, without prepayment of fees, by registered mail, restricted delivery, return receipt required, on the following: e Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt, 7325 Riverpointe Dr., Maumelle, AR 72113;

-2-

e Rreaf Residential, LLC, Registered Agents, Inc., 701 South Street, Ste. 100, Mountain Home, AR 72653. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 16 Novem 2023

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

SAMMIE MCCASTLE PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 4:23-cv-935-DPM

RREAF RESIDENTIAL RIVER POINT APT. DEFENDANT

ORDER 1. McCastle’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted. His modest monthly expenses exceed his social security benefits. 2. The Court must screen McCastle’s complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court’s rules require a short and plain statement of facts that show a plausible violation of some particular law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). McCastle claims he was fired in violation of Title VII because of his race and age. Doc. 2. Although he offers no specifics in his complaint, the Court can identify some details from the attached EEOC charge of discrimination. McCastle, an older service manager on Rreaf Residential’s maintenance team, says that Robert Arnold asked him if caring for the sizable property took a toll on someone his age. He says he was then written up for his performance.

McCastle has since filed a second charge of discrimination with the EEOC and noticed the Court. Doc. 5. In that charge, he says he was suspended and ultimately fired following a “tenant accusation.” He adds that his job was advertised weeks before his termination, implying the alleged accusation was pretext for discrimination. This second charge says Rreaf Residential has 100-200 employees, while his first charge says it has less than 15. 3. Read in the light most favorable to McCastle, his complaint and attachments state a plausible claim of age discrimination. McPherson v. Brennan, 888 F.3d 1002, 1003-1004 (8th Cir. 2018). 4. McCastle’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). 5. The Clerk must prepare summons for Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt. The Clerk must provide copies of the summons along with the complaint, and this Order to the Marshal, who must serve process, without prepayment of fees, by registered mail, restricted delivery, return receipt required, on the following: e Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt, 7325 Riverpointe Dr., Maumelle, AR 72113;

-2-

e Rreaf Residential, LLC, Registered Agents, Inc., 701 South Street, Ste. 100, Mountain Home, AR 72653. So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 16 Novem 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCastle v. Rreaf Residential River Pointe Apt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccastle-v-rreaf-residential-river-pointe-apt-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack