United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
PAUL A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, and WAYNE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendants
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Paul A. Mitchell, Plaintiff, Pro se, Goldsboro, NC.
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief United States District Judge.
On October 7, 2014, Paul A. Mitchell (" Mitchell" or " plaintiff'), appearing pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1] and a verified complaint against defendants North Carolina Division of Employment Security and Wayne Community College (" WCC" ) [D.E. 1-1]. Mitchell seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. See Compl. [D.E. 1-1] 1, 20-21. As explained below, the court permits Mitchell to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses the complaint and denies his request for injunctive relief.
Mitchell is a former instructor at WCC. Compl. 1. Mitchell has a different civil action pending in this court against the North Carolina Community College System, WCC, and various WCC officials alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (" Title VII" ) and numerous state law claims arising from his employment and termination at WCC. See Amended Complaint, Mitchell v. Bd. of Trs. of Wayne Cmty. Coll., 5:14-CV-231 -D (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2014) [D.E. 6]. In addition, on September 9, 2014, this court denied Mitchell's attempt to remove a criminal action pending against him in Wayne County Superior Court. See Order, In re N.C. v. Mitchell, No. 5:14-CR-156-D, 76 F.Supp.3d 618, (E.D.N.C. Sept. 9, 2014) [D.E. 3]. The criminal action also relates to his former employment at WCC.
In Mitchell's latest complaint, he has sued the North Carolina Division of Employment Security and WCC. See Compl. Mitchell alleges that WCC retaliated against him in violation of Title VII during his unemployment case at the North Carolina Division of Employment Security. See Compl. 11-14 (counts I and II). According to Mitchell, WCC retaliated against him by making " false statements" about him to the North Carolina Division of Employment Security in order to disqualify Mitchell from receiving unemployment benefits and to injure his reputation. See id. 11. Mitchell also alleges that the North Carolina Division of Employment Security retaliated against him in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (" Title VI" ) when it denied his request to receive unemployment benefits. See Compl. 15-19 (counts HI and IV). Mitchell seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, to include: (1) an order directing the North Carolina Division of Employment Security to " release [his] withheld employment benefits of $7,350," including interest; (2) an order directing WCC " to reinstate Mitchell to his original position as Science Instructor with back pay" ; and (3) an order directing WCC not to retaliate against Mitchell or engage in racial discrimination against Mitchell. See id. 20-21 (prayer for relief).
First, the court addresses Mitchell's latest Title VII claims against WCC. Before filing suit under Title VII, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. See, e.g., Sydnor v. Fairfax Cnty., 681 F.3d 591, 593 (4th Cir. 2012);
Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009); Chacko v. Patuxent Inst., 429 F.3d 505, 509-13 (4th Cir. 2005); Miles v. Dell. Inc., 429 F.3d 480,491-92 (4th Cir. 2005); Bryant v. Bell A. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124,132-33 (4th Cir. 2002); Sloop v. Mem'l Mission Hosp., Inc., 198 F.3d 147, 148-50 (4th Cir. 1999); Dennis v. Cnty. of Fairfax, 55 F.3d 151, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1995). If a plaintiff fails to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Title VII claim.
See, e.g., Jones, 551 F.3d at 300.
Mitchell never filed a charge of discrimination with or obtained a resolution from the EEOC concerning his latest retaliation claims against WCC. Thus, Mitchell has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC under Title VII. Accordingly, this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over ...