Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lejon-Twin EL v. Marino

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 28, 2017

ERWIN LEJON-TWIN EL, Plaintiff,
v.
JOE MARINO, Director, Human Resources, and IMPAX LABORATORIES, f/k/a CarePharma, Defendants.

          OPINION

          KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge

         This pro se plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against his employer, Impax Laboratories, and its Director of Human Resources, Joe Marino. (I will refer to the defendants collectively as "Impax.") It alleged that he came to work at Impax under his birth name of Erwin Hilton; that in accordance with the tenets of the Moorish Science Temple, he currently goes by Erwin LeJon-Twin El; and that Impax will not issue his paycheck in his currently preferred name. On February 14, 2017, I filed an Opinion (ECF no. 50) and Order (ECF no. 51) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint, without prejudice to the filing of a properly supported motion to file an amended complaint. Now before the court is the plaintiffs motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 to file an amended complaint. (ECF no. 52) A proposed amended complaint (inaccurately designated as an "Affidavit" on the docket) is attached. (ECF no. 52-3, cited as "1AC") The defendants have filed an opposition to the motion to amend (ECF no. 53), and the plaintiff has filed a motion that is in substance a reply (ECF no. 54). For the reasons stated herein, the motion to amend will be denied, this time with prejudice, and the clerk will be directed to close the file.

         I. NEW ALLEGATIONS IN THE PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT

         The factual allegations of the proposed amended complaint ("1AC") are in many respects similar to those in the original complaint. Some new allegations, however, have been added: In a section titled "Supplemental Pleadings, " etc., plaintiff describes miscellaneous interactions with banks and bank tellers who are not parties to this case. These involved his efforts to cash his paycheck, for which he was charged a banking fee. (1AC ¶ 31) Plaintiff also alleges that he "reasonably believe [s]" that because he "provided information to the defendants and New Jersey Department of Labor . . . the defendants terminated/discharged me from employment, on or around December 9, 2016." (1AC ¶ 34).[1]

         The legal causes of action in the amended complaint have been changed and supplemented. Although claims are not always clearly identified or labeled, I believe there are approximately fifteen:

(1) the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a;
(2) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.;
(3) the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, " 1 U.S.C. § 8;
(4) 4 C.F.R. § 83.9;
(5) 4 C.F.R. §83.10;
(6) 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights), 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), and 1001 (fraud and false statements);
(7) 49 C.F.R. § 802.7(d) and (e);
(8) 28 C.F.R. ยง ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.