Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox

Background

Damond J. Roker, who was incarcerated in Tennessee, filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. The defendants named in the caption were Twentieth Century Fox and others. The opinion does not identify the other defendants by name.

The court had previously directed Roker to amend his complaint. Roker then moved to voluntarily dismiss the action, and on September 17, 2020, the court granted that request and dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling. After the case was closed, Roker filed additional documents, including documents titled “Second Amended Complaint,” “Second Cause of Action – Defamation of Character,” and “Third Cause of Action – Claims for Emotional Distress.” He also moved to reinstate the case and to vacate the dismissal order.

The court treated those two motions as requests to change or obtain relief from the judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted them. The court reopened the action and stated that the previously filed second amended complaint would be the operative complaint—the complaint governing the case at that point. The court also warned Roker not to file separate documents adding or removing claims and explained that any further amendment had to comply with Rule 15.

Motions Before the Court

After reopening, Roker filed documents titled “Supplement to Second Amended Complaint (Third Amended Complaint),” “Supplement (Appendix) to Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claims/Applicable Law,” and another “Second Amended Complaint.” He also filed a letter concerning a Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court considered his motion for leave to amend the complaint and his motion for appointment of counsel.

Leave to Amend

The court granted Roker’s motion for leave to amend and granted him permission to file a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days. The court directed him to include all claims he intended to pursue in that complaint instead of repeatedly filing separate documents seeking to add or remove claims and parties.

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide only a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. A plaintiff does not have to submit evidence at the pleading stage. The court also stated that a claim must be plausible, meaning that the alleged facts must make entitlement to relief more than merely possible. The court noted that Roker appeared to be proposing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against individual defendants, and stated that Title VII does not allow claims against individual defendants.

Roker was directed to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days, caption it “Third Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-5350. No summons would issue at that time. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court would treat the second amended complaint as the operative complaint.

Request for Counsel and Disposition

Roker asked the court to request a pro bono lawyer—an attorney serving without charge. In deciding such a request for a person unable to pay, the court considers the apparent merits of the case, the person’s efforts to find a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without a lawyer. The court stated that it could not assess the merits at this stage.

The court denied Roker’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. It granted Roker’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.