Goodwin v. SCA of MO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CORNELL GOODWIN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCA OF MO,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-01971-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Cornell Goodwin’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 19). This is Plaintiff’s second attempt to proceed without pre-payment
of fees. His first was denied in a Memorandum and Order dated November 5, 2025 (Doc. 12). In
that order, the Court found that Plaintiff did not provide enough information for it to determine
whether he is indigent and failed to state a claim under the ADEA or Title VII. Therefore, it
denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), dismissed his complaint (Doc. 1), and
gave him until December 4, 2025, to file an amended complaint and new motion. The Court later
extended the deadline to February 9, 2026. Plaintiff filed both on February 5, 2026.
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).
Case 3:25-cv-01971-JPG Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
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. Plaintiff’s complaint attempts to assert a claim under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) against Defendant SCA of MO for terminating his
employment based on race. Title VII makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any individual
with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). For a
plaintiff to state a claim under Title VII, he must allege that the defendant terminated his
employment because of his protected characteristic. See Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074,
1084 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998) (“‘I was
turned down for a job because of my race’ is all a complaint has to say”).
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was fired for stealing gas without any
evidence, documentation, or warning. He explains that, during the phone call when he was fired,
his manager Emma stated that people from the area where he lived, who also worked for the
company, were stealing gas. He says this statement connected the accusation to his place of
residence rather than any proven conduct. He feels that the statement was offensive and
discriminatory. These facts are not sufficient to state a claim under Title VII. Place of residence
is not a protected characteristic, and Plaintiff makes no allegations that connect his place of
residence to his race. Since Plaintiff has not alleged that he was fired because of his race (or any
other protected characteristic), he has failed to state a claim under Title VII.
Case 3:25-cv-01971-JPG Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is indigent but finds that he fails to state a claim under
Title VII. Therefore, the Court RESERVES RULING on the Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 19) and DISMIISSES the Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) without
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii). Plaintiff shall have up to and including April
3, 2026, to file a second amended complaint. The Court WARNS Plaintiff that this will be his
final opportunity to amend his complaint to state a claim under Title VII. It DIRECTS the Clerk
of Court to send Plaintiff a blank employment discrimination complaint along with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 4, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01971-JPG Document 20 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>