Kilayko-Gullas v. Doe

Background

Cecilia Kilayko-Gullas, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. She invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits covered employers from discriminating in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Kilayko-Gullas alleged that Luis Bestain, whom she identified as a senior maintenance worker at Hotel 17, told her and her son that they could not use bathrooms on part of the hotel’s fifth floor. She characterized the restriction as discrimination. She also alleged that Bestain did not return keys she had dropped in a bathroom, including a mailbox key. She sought money damages and orders requiring access to a bathroom and return of the keys.

Federal Claims

Because Kilayko-Gullas had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court dismissed the Title VII claim for failure to state a claim. Kilayko-Gullas did not allege that Bestain or Hotel 17 was her employer, or that the alleged bathroom restriction affected her compensation or other employment conditions. She also did not allege facts showing that Bestain treated her differently because of a protected characteristic. The court therefore found no basis for a Title VII or other federal discrimination claim.

The court separately dismissed the claim concerning the keys. It found no plausible allegation that the failure to return the keys deprived Kilayko-Gullas of a right secured by federal law. The court also explained that a private person cannot initiate an arrest or prosecution in federal court; the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any remaining state-law claims.

The court also denied leave to amend. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, the court found that the defects in Kilayko-Gullas’s amended complaint could not be cured by another amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and terminated all other pending matters. It warned that further vexatious, frivolous, or otherwise nonmeritorious litigation could lead to an order requiring permission before Kilayko-Gullas could file new actions without prepaying fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.