United States District Court, N.D. Indiana
OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lloyd Brown's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 2). The Court has screened his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and has determined that it fails to state claims under various civil rights statutes and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over one of Plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied and his complaint dismissed.
A. Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff has sued Paula Harner, whom he describes as the head boss at 9th Street Cafe in Marion, Indiana, and five Jane Does, described as waitresses there ("waitresses"). Plaintiff, a black man, alleges that on January 3, 2015, he went to the cafe to deliver car keys to his girlfriend, Penny Hix, a white woman. He was sitting with Hix in her car in the cafe parking lot when the waitresses came running toward the car, yelling at him using a racial epithet and calling him a drunk. When he got out of the car, the waitresses, all white women, threatened harm to him and wouldn't allow him to get back into the car. He walked to his home, a distance of a few blocks. He then received a phone call from a Marion police officer telling him he was not in any trouble, but that the employees did not want him at the cafe. According to Plaintiff, the officer told him there were court orders in place to keep him off the cafe property, but, he alleges, no such orders exist.
Plaintiff further alleges that the employees of the cafe are all white women who routinely discriminate against blacks by serving them after whites are served. He maintains that their treatment of him is motivated by their disapproval of his relationship with a white woman. He claims he has been denied service at the cafe for this reason. He claims that Defendants have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He requests money damages and an order that the cafe hire blacks.
The Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen a complaint before service on the defendants, and to dismiss it if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Moreover, the Court has a duty to examine whether its has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et. seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Plaintiff has alleged no facts that would support such a claim. Accordingly his claims based on Title VI must be dismissed. Moreover, the Court finds that amendment to his complaint would be futile. Plaintiff can allege no set of facts that would support a finding that the boss at a restaurant its waitresses constitute a program receiving federal financial assistance.
Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that defendants deprived him of a federal right and that they acted under color of state law. Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Defendants are private individuals. The state action doctrine requires that when a plaintiff brings a § 1983 action against a defendant who is not a government official or employee he must show such a close connection between the State and the challenged action that the action of the private individual may be fairly treated as the action of the State itself. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 822-23 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has alleged no facts to suggest any connection between Defendants' alleged name calling, chasing Plaintiff from the parking lot, or refusal of service at the cafe and any governmental entity. According, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983. The Court also finds that Plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend his § 1983 claim because it would be futile. The facts he alleges make it clear that defendants were acting as private citizens and not state actors.
Plaintiff may have been attempting to state a claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, et seq. Section 2000a declares that "[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation... without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." Section 2000a-2 provides:
No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive any person of any right or privilege secured by section 2000a... of this title, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 2000a... of this title or
(c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 2000a... of this title.
However, this section is of no avail to Plaintiff because the relief he requests-monetary damages and an order that the cafe hire blacks-is not available under it. Section 2000a-3(a) provides that an aggrieved person may institute a civil action for preventive relief, including an injunction. The Supreme Court has held that damages are not recoverable under Title II. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401-2 (1968). Moreover, nothing in the language of § 2000a-3(a) or the case law suggests that a court may order the hiring of blacks as a remedy for denying a person service in violation of Title II.
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged in his complaint that he has complied with 42 U.S.C. § ...