Tejada v. Social Security Administration

Background

Reberto Almonta Tejada proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file the case without paying filing fees. He used an employment-discrimination complaint form and named US Associate Security Firm, the Social Security Administration, and Carroll Street Property as defendants. He alleged that he had been employed at “Tower Home Owner/Gernal Delivery” in Manhattan and checked boxes asserting race and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Tejada described his race as Latin American and his sex as “show tape binne room mesuem.” He also made allegations concerning federal benefits and redirected Social Security payments. He sought re-employment, redirection of money he believed he was owed, damages, and an order stopping someone from working or receiving wages. He stated that he had not filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or another government agency, while also alleging that he received an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice of a right to sue in 2008.

Court’s analysis

Because Tejada was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his amended complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although filings by people without lawyers are read liberally, they still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

For the Title VII claims, the court explained that Tejada needed to plausibly allege both an adverse employment action and facts showing that race, sex, or another protected characteristic motivated that action. The court found it unclear which defendant, if any, employed Tejada. It further found that he alleged no facts showing that he experienced an adverse employment action or that such an action was motivated by race, sex, or another protected characteristic. The court therefore dismissed the federal employment-discrimination claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Thus, the court declined to consider any state-law claims Tejada might be asserting under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Other requests and disposition

The court denied Tejada’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel, without prejudice to renewing that request if he filed a second amended complaint. The court concluded that amendment was not clearly futile and granted Tejada 30 days to file a second amended complaint correcting the identified defects. If he did not do so within that period, the court stated that the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court dismissed the amended complaint with 30 days’ leave to replead. It directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.