Carpenter v. US Postal Service et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES CARPENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
LISA PITTMAN, and
JOSEPH JUNTI,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00217-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Charles Carpenter’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed
without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified
plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or
malicious or fails to state a claim. Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining if an
action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the
law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v.
Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). When assessing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court
should inquire into the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous,
it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th
Cir. 1982).
The Court is satisfied from Plaintiff’s affidavit that he is indigent. However, it finds that
he fails to state a claim within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. This Court has subject
Case 3:26-cv-00217-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
matter jurisdiction over cases that arise under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and cases where the
parties are completely diverse and where more than $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, is
in issue, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Plaintiff attempts to bring an employment discrimination
claim for manager misconduct. To support his claim, Plaintiff alleges that he has evidence that:
(1) Defendant Lisa Pittman lied to medical staff by saying that his injury did not happen on the
job; and (2) Defendant Joe Junti tried to obstruct his OWCD benefits. These allegations are not
sufficient to state a claim under any federal employment discrimination statute. See e.g., 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin); 29 U.S.C. § 623 (prohibiting employment discrimination based on age); 42
U.S.C. § 12101 (prohibiting employment discrimination based on disability). As such, Plaintiff
fails to state a claim within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. In addition, the Court is
unable to determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiff has not
alleged the citizenship of all the defendants.
The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is indigent, but it finds that he fails to state a claim
within its subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE
on or before April 13, 2026, why it should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. In
response to this order to show cause, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with sufficient
facts to state a claim within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. If Plaintiff fails to respond to
this order to show cause, the Court will dismiss this case. It RESERVES RULING on Plaintiff
Charles Carpenter’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	March 13, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00217-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00217-JPG Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>