The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, District Judge
The plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint against the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Agency and/or the Agency itself
("VA"), alleging that the Agency failed to hire her as a
pharmacist because the Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy kept
her on probationary status.
With her complaint, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis, which is hereby granted. However, the plaintiff's
complaint will be dismissed as legally frivolous, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).*fn1
A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Even under the most liberal reading of the complaint, the
plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would provide an
arguable basis in law or fact for any claim for which relief can
The plaintiff seems to allege that her civil rights were
violated by the agency's failure to hire her. The plaintiff,
however, also states that "this complaint is not about the VA."
She alleges, instead, that the State Board of Pharmacy violated
her due process rights by keeping her on probation. She alleges
that the VA would have hired her but for the probationary status
of her pharmacy license.
The plaintiff apparently seeks to assert a failure to hire
claim under Title VII against the VA. She does not make
allegations to support such a claim. Title VII prohibits an
employer from failing to hire a person on the basis of his or her
race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Kachmar v. Sungard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173
(3d Cir. 1997). The plaintiff alleges that the only reason she
was not hired was because of her probationary status.
To the extent the plaintiff also seeks to assert a § 1983 due
process claim against the State Board of Pharmacy, that claim
shall be dismissed. The State Board of Pharmacy is not named as a
party to this suit and the plaintiff does not make any factual
allegations showing how the State Board of Pharmacy putatively violated her due process rights. See Colburn v.
Upper Darby Township, 838 F.2d 663, 666 (3d Cir. 1988) (a § 1983
complaint must "allege the specific conduct violating the
plaintiff's rights, the time and place of that conduct, and the
identity of the responsible officials."). The Court cannot find a
meritorious legal theory or a factual basis for this action. The
Complaint is therefore frivolous and shall be dismissed.
An appropriate Order follows. ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2004, upon consideration of the
plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the
accompanying complaint and attachments thereto (Docket No. 1), IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis is GRANTED, but that this action is DISMISSED
as frivolous pursuant ...