Court of Appeals frowns upon sua sponte dismissals without notice to the party

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se, alleging that a security guard at Trinity Church in Manhattan attacked him with chemical spray. He sued under Title VII, which makes it unlawful to retaliate against employees in certain contexts. The district court dismissed the case sua sponte, even before the Church made an appearance in the case, claiming plaintiff has no case and that he does not even allege an employer-employee relationship sufficient to proceed under Title VII. The Court of Appeals reinstates the case.

The case is Moroshkin v. Rev. Dietsche, a summary order issued on November 1. Here is how the district court summarizes the complaint:

The events giving rise to this complaint occurred on January 10, 2021, while Plaintiff was standing by the gate of Trinity Church waiting to receive a sandwich. The complaint sets forth the following facts. A security guard named Louis attacked Plaintiff “from the back by chemical spray used by military forces against active civilians in occupied territories to trace their movement and place of residence.” The chemical “bioweapon” caused Plaintiff to lose teeth and experience cardiac distress and chronic pain to his back and left leg. Later that evening, a black car came to Plaintiff’s temporary residence, and a person from the car shouted to Plaintiff’s landlord, “is Sergei living here?”

The district court held that even if these allegations were true, plaintiff did not allege he was an employee of Trinity Church. Hence, no Title VII claim. The Court of Appeals reverses, noting that "dismissing a case without an opportunity to be heard is, at a minimum, bad practice in numerous contexts and is reversible error in others." Since plaintiff did  not simply pay a filing fee to pursue "fantastic or delusional claims," the Circuit Court (Carney, Lohier and Nathan) says, the case is reinstated. The Court of Appeals does not address how plaintiff did not plead an employer-employee relationship, but I guess plaintiff will have a chance to replead his complaint on remand to the district court.