Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 28, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-05350·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAMOND J. ROKER, Plaintiff, 20-CV-5350 (LLS) -against- ORDER TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, et al., Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Tennessee, filed this action pro se and proceeds in forma pauperis. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint and his motion for pro bono counsel. (ECF 28-29.) PROCEDURAL HISTORY By order dated August 24, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint. Plaintiff then moved to voluntarily dismiss this action, and on September 17, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and dismissed this action without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling it. (ECF 15.) After the case was closed, Plaintiff filed documents titled, “Second Cause of Action – Defamation of Character” (ECF 17), Second Amended Complaint (ECF 16), and “Third Cause of Action – Claims for Emotional Distress” (ECF No. 18), “Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate case”(ECF 19) and “Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order to voluntarily dismiss his complaint.” (ECF 20.) The Court liberally construed the latter two submissions as motions to alter or amend judgment, and, in the alternative, as motions for relief from a judgment or order, under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted the motions. The Court held that once the action was reopened, it would proceed with the second amended complaint (ECF 16) as the operative complaint. The Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that he should not submit separate documents supplementing his complaint and adding new claims, and that any further amendment of the complaint must comply with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF 23 at 2, n.2.)

After this matter was reopened. Plaintiff filed documents titled: (1) “Supplement to Second Amended Complaint (Third Amended Complaint),” (ECF 24); (2) “Supplement (Appendix) to Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claims/Applicable Law,” (ECF 25); and (3) “Second Amended Complaint,” (ECF 26), even though he had previously filed a second amended complaint. Plaintiff also filed a letter regarding his receipt of a Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (ECF 27), and two motions: a motion for leave to amend the complaint (ECF 28), and a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 29). DISCUSSION A. Leave to Amend Complaint The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint and grants him leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty days. As set forth in the Court’s prior

orders, an amended complaint completely replaces a prior complaint, and the Court directs Plaintiff to include all of the claims that he intends to bring in his Third Amended Complaint, rather than continuously filing separate documents seeking to add or delete parties or claims. The Court also notes that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that a complaint make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.1 A plaintiff is not required to submit evidence at the pleading stage.

1 A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 Finally, it appears that Plaintiff proposes to assert claims in his Third Amended Complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against various individual defendants. The Court notes that a Title VII claim will not lie against an individual defendant. See, e.g., Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313-14 (2d Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington

Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); see also Darcy v. Lippman, 356 F. App’x 434, 436- 37 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that title VII does not provide for actions against individual supervisors). B. Request for Pro Bono Counsel Plaintiff filed a motion asking the Court to request pro bono counsel for him. The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and Plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because the Court cannot assess the merits of Plaintiff’s action at this stage in the proceedings, his motion for

counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to appoint counsel (ECF 29) is denied, and his motion for leave to amend his complaint (ECF 28) is granted.

U.S. at 555). But the Court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 55). After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within thirty days of the date of this order, caption the document as a “Third Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 20-CV-5350 (LLS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will deem the second amended complaint (ECF 16) the operative complaint. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2021 New York, New York Laks Stantee Louis L. Stanton US.D.J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Write the full name of each plaintiff. CV (Include case number if one has been assigned) -against- COMPLAINT Do you want a jury trial? Ll1Yes LINo

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section Il.

NOTICE The public can access electronic court files.

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

Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox (Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Darcy v. Lippman
356 F. App'x 434 (Second Circuit, 2009)