Moore v. US Bank National Assoc
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:23-cv-00908
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Moore v. US Bank, Judge Wright denied Moore’s fee-waiver application and dismissed her employment-discrimination case without prejudice because her complaint lacked supporting facts.
Mariama Moore’s employment-discrimination case was dismissed without prejudice, and her application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied. US Bank National Assoc. and Robert Moore were the defendants.
What happened
In Mariama Moore v. US Bank National Assoc. and Robert Moore, Moore sued after the defendants interviewed her but did not offer her a job or review her résumé and work history. She alleged discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, color, gender, disability, age, and “Other.”
The court said Moore’s complaint did not provide facts showing that the defendants treated her differently because of a protected characteristic. For example, she did not identify similar applicants who were treated differently. The court therefore found that her discrimination claims were not plausible under federal pleading rules.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright concluded that Moore qualified financially to proceed without paying the filing fee but denied her application because the complaint failed to state a claim. The court dismissed the case without prejudice under federal law.
The detailed version
- Moore v. US Bank National Assoc · No. 0:23-cv-00908
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Mariama Moore filed an employment-discrimination lawsuit against US Bank National Assoc. and Robert Moore. She alleged that the defendants interviewed her for a job but did not offer her employment and did not review her résumé and work history. Based on those allegations, she claimed discrimination under federal law because of race, religion, national origin, color, gender, disability status, age, and “Other.”
Moore also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court’s filing fee. The court concluded that she qualified financially for that status.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it must dismiss an action filed by an applicant seeking this status if the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make the claim plausible rather than speculative.
The court found that Moore offered no factual basis showing that the defendants treated her differently because of race, religion, or another protected characteristic. In particular, she did not identify similarly situated applicants who were treated differently. The court held that her conclusory allegations of discrimination were insufficient to state a plausible federal claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the matter without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and denied Moore’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.