Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 RegisterActionDate "2020-12-17" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE Entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On November 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against her former employer alleging claims for employment discrimination on the basis of color under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981), race under Title VII and Section 1981, and sex under Title VII 1 . In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC) on August 28, 2019. Plaintiff also has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 4 .Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), any person may commence a civil action without the prepayment of fees if he or she is unable to pay them. The Court must screen all complaints accompanied by an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and it must dismiss a complaint that "is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(2)(B)(i)(iii); see Hutchinson v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to cases brought by non-prisoners). Courts screen complaints under § 1915 in the same manner they review motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2011).A civil action alleging a violation of Title VII must be filed within ninety days after a complaining party's receipt of a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); DaTata v. Rollprint Packaging Prods. Inc., 632 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Thomas v. United Parcel Serv., 2000 WL 290279, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2000) (dismissing an untimely complaint because "the [ninety-day] time limit is not a flexible guideline even for pro se litigants and a one-day delay is fatal); Wilson v. Drs. Hosp. of Hyde Park, 909 F. Supp. 580, 581 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Although dismissal for an untimely complaint seems harsh, "it is the result mandated by the law in this Circuit." Harris v. The Picture People, 2004 WL 1898784, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2004).While Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she received the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on August 28, 2019, this appears to be a typographical error because the right-to-sue letter attached to Plaintiff's complaint references a date of August 28, 2020. If Plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter on August 28, 2019, her deadline to file a complaint has long since passed. If, on the other hand, Plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter on August 28, 2020, the latest date Plaintiff could have filed her complaint was November 26, 2020. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on November 27, 2020, is time-barred, and the Court dismisses the complaint 1 with prejudice. The Court also denies Plaintiff's IFP application 4 as moot. Mailed notice (axc). (Entered: 12/17/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 AdministrativeID "6" @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 hasIfpJudgeAttribution SJ000687 @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 hasIfpLabel IFP_DENY @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de0 @default.
- ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de5 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:20-cv-07427_de3 @default.