Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 13, 1995No. Civ. A. 94-7203PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER
ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.
Defendant, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, in a one paragraph complaint, alleges that the EEOC “den[ied] [him] equal opportunity” and “violat[ed] [his] civil rights” when it judged (and dismissed) under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Andrews v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Hannah v. LarcheSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Storey v. RubinDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1997
- Fullman v. HendersonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
- Adams v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Adams v. US EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM'NDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996