Correa v. Carnahan

Background

Colin Scott Kana’i Correa filed this pro se action against Robin Carnahan, Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA); Aluanda Drain, Associate Administrator for Civil Rights; and Andrea M. O’Neal, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Equity. Correa alleged that his employer discriminated against him because of his race, color, sex, and age. He invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The court had previously granted Correa permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. When a plaintiff proceeds this way, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

Section 1981 Claims

The court dismissed Correa’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination, but the court explained that the statute’s reference to conduct under state law applies to state actors, not federal officials. Because Correa sued federal defendants for alleged employment discrimination, the court concluded that he could not state a § 1981 claim against them.

Claims Against Drain and O’Neal

The court also dismissed Correa’s claims against Drain and O’Neal. It explained that federal employees bringing employment-discrimination claims under Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must sue the head of the agency where the alleged discrimination occurred. Individual agency employees are not proper defendants under those statutes. Because Carnahan is the Administrator of the GSA, the court dismissed the claims against Drain and O’Neal for failure to state a claim.

Service on Carnahan

The court directed service of the complaint on Carnahan. Because Correa was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court instructed the clerk to issue a summons, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service form, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that Correa should request an extension if service is not completed within that period and must notify the court of any address change.

Disposition

The court dismissed the § 1981 claims and dismissed the claims against Drain and O’Neal for failure to state a claim. It directed the clerk to issue and process service on Carnahan. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.