Jackson v. Beacon City School District
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-08164-PMH
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Jackson v. Beacon City School District, Judge Roman found the amended complaint insufficient and granted one final chance to amend.
Walter L. Jackson and Beacon City School District; Jackson received one final opportunity to amend his employment-discrimination complaint, while the action remained subject to possible dismissal if he did not comply.
What happened
In Jackson v. Beacon City School District, Walter L. Jackson, representing himself, claimed under Title VII that his employer discriminated against him because of his race. The court had previously given him an opportunity to amend because his original complaint did not allege facts showing a race-based adverse employment action.
Jackson filed an amended complaint, but the court found that it repeated the same facts and did not support an employment-discrimination claim. The court granted him one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint rather than dismissing the action at that time.
Judge Nelson S. Roman required the second amended complaint to be filed within 45 days and warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Beacon City School District · No. 7:19-cv-08164-PMH
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Walter L. Jackson, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, brought a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged that his employer, Beacon City School District, discriminated against him because of his race. The court had previously found that his original complaint did not allege facts suggesting that the defendant took an adverse employment action because of his membership in a protected class. The allegations also appeared to suggest that a reason unrelated to a protected class explained why the defendant did not pay him.
On November 14, 2019, the court gave Jackson 60 days to amend. He filed an amended complaint on November 27, 2019. The court found that the amended complaint repeated the same facts and did not include the documents referenced by the words “see attached.” The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint was insufficient to state an employment-discrimination claim.
Leave to Amend
The court explained that a complaint filed by a person without a lawyer generally should receive at least one opportunity to be amended when a generous reading of the allegations suggests that a valid claim might be stated. Although Jackson had already received one opportunity to amend, the court granted him one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint with enough facts to establish an employment-discrimination claim.
The court directed Jackson, to the greatest extent possible, to identify the relevant people and their titles; describe what each defendant did or failed to do; provide dates, times, and locations; explain how the conduct violated his rights; describe his injuries; identify the relief he sought; and provide addresses for named defendants. The court stated that the second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, both earlier complaints.
Ruling and Effect
The court granted Jackson leave to file a second amended complaint. It required him to submit the document to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 45 days of the order, label it “Second Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-8164 (NSR). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that, if Jackson failed to comply and could not show a good reason for the failure, it would dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Jackson and note service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not dismiss the action at that time.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.