Williams v. FedEx

Background

Christopher Ambrose Williams, representing himself, brought a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The opinion states that he had previously received permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The complaint alleged only: “I filed a complaint with the department of labor that my former employer violates the Sarbanes Oxley Act and would like to not [sic] withdraw my complaint to federal court.”

Legal standards

Because Williams was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court explained that it must dismiss an action or claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must give a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although courts read self-represented filings liberally, those filings still must comply with the federal pleading rules.

Sarbanes-Oxley claim

The court explained that the relevant Sarbanes-Oxley provision protects an employee from retaliation for reporting certain suspected fraud or legal violations to a supervisor or another authorized person. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege that he engaged in protected activity, the employer knew about it, he suffered an unfavorable employment action, and the protected activity contributed to that action. The employee must first file a complaint with the Department of Labor and may sue if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision within 180 days.

The court found that Williams’s complaint did not explain what actually happened. It did not identify the protected activity, describe an unfavorable action by his former employer, or allege that the action resulted from the protected activity. Although Williams stated that he filed a Department of Labor complaint, he did not provide the filing date, so the court could not determine whether more than 180 days had passed without a final decision.

Request for counsel

Williams also requested a lawyer. The court considered the merits of the case, Williams’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, it denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.

Disposition

The court granted Williams leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It directed him to provide the relevant facts, including who did what, when and where the events occurred, how the defendants violated his rights, his injuries, and the relief he seeks. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court also directed Williams to provide addresses for the defendants, stated that no summons would issue at that time, and warned that failure to amend within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion for counsel and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it.