You're viewing Docket Item 3 from the case Kodjo v. Tyson Foods Farm. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:



) Case No. 3:13-cv-0679

Judge Sharp







Plaintiff Mawuena Kodjo has filed a pro se complaint asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act for discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. Before the Court is the plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2). Because it appears

from the plaintiff’s submission that he lacks sufficient financial resources from which to pay the full fee

required for the filing of a complaint, the application is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the

complaint in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to conduct an initial review of any

complaint filed in forma pauperis and to dismiss the complaint, or any claim asserted therein, to the extent

it is facially frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The Court must construe a pro se

plaintiff’s complaint liberally, Boag v. McDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), and accept the plaintiff’s

allegations as true unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.

25, 33 (1992).

In his complaint, the plaintiff asserts that he was formerly employed by defendant Tyson Foods.

The plaintiff alleges that he is a member of a protected class, that he was subjected to adverse

employment actions by Tyson Foods, and that other employees who are not members of a protected

class were treated more favorably than he under similar circumstances. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2), the Court finds that the complaint states a colorable claim of discrimination in violation of Title

Case 3:13-cv-00679 Document 3 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14

VII against Tyson Foods that is not facially frivolous or malicious. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to

ISSUE PROCESS to the defendant.

This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to enter a scheduling order for the

management of the case, to dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court. Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, regarding required initial discovery disclosures, shall not apply.

Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge

It is so ORDERED.

Case 3:13-cv-00679 Document 3 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15

- 2 -