Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Apenyuiagba v. Omaha Nursing Home And Rehab

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

January 10, 2020

ABLA DZADZA APENYUIAGBA, Plaintiff,
v.
OMAHA NURSING HOME AND REHAB, ANN GRAY, EMILY, and STEPHANIE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

         Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter on January 23, 2019. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff's Complaint consists of a form civil complaint and a form complaint for employment discrimination. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff sues her former employer, Omaha Nursing and Rehab, and staff members Ann Gray, Emily, and Stephanie (collectively “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants discriminated against her on the bases of race and color, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and based on her disability or perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 to 12117. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 8-9.) Plaintiff also checked the box on the form complaint indicating that Defendants discriminated against her based on her age, but did not include her age nor did she check the box on the form to indicate she brought this action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges the following facts in support of her claims:

I was sick and asked permission to go home when I was asked to work in another hall. I was reported to the administration that I refused assignment. I worked all night with pain and accepted additional tasks that I was unable to go back to work and called in. I was hurt at work and the[y] refused to pay medical bills. I was also exposed to disease[.]
. . . .
I was terminated and couldn't do my usually [sic] jobs due to my work restrictions[.] I was intimitaded [sic] and harassed at work that traumatized me. I was discriminated. I was not pay fairly. I was refused to get vacation and breaks[.] I am still suffering from my injuries and the staff of Omaha Nursing and Rehab still reporting what happened to my other employer.

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.)

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages and medical bills. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 11.)

         II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

         “The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.'” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.