.
COASTAL COAL COMPANY, LLC
October 5, 2000
VAA 2000-16-D


        FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

               OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                      2 SKYLINE, Suite 1000
                       5203 LEESBURG PIKE
                  FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA  22041


                         October 5, 2000


WILLIAM C. GREEN,             :  DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
          Complainant         :
                              :  Docket No. VA 2000-16-D
          v.                  :  NORT CD 2000-1
                              :
COASTAL COAL COMPANY, LLC,    :  Guess Mountain Mine #2
          Respondent          :  Mine ID 44-06807

                             ORDER

     Respondent,   filed   a  Motion  to  Dismiss  Discrimination
Complaint on August 28, 2000,  on the grounds that "Complainant's
discharge does not violate § 105(c)  of  the  Federal Mine Safety
and Health of 1977 ("Mine Act"), and his complaint fails to state
a  claim upon which relief may be granted under  the  Mine  Act."
Specifically,  Respondent  asserted  that  Complainant  fails  to
allege  protected activity under the Act.  By Order to Respond of
September  8,  2000,  Complainant  was  directed  to  respond  to
Respondent's  motion  by  specifying  in  detail  the  reason  he
believes  he  was  discharged.   Complainant  timely responded on
September 20, 2000. Respondent  replied  on  October  2,  2000,  
acknowledging   that Complainant had, indeed, alleged protected ac-
tivity, but renewing its  motion  to dismiss on the grounds that 
Complainant failed to file a Prehearing  Report,  as directed by 
Order to Show Cause of August 5, 2000, and that he cannot  establish
a prima facie case of discrimination.

       Pro se litigants are afforded a great deal  of latitude in
bringing  claims  before  the  Commission  and  under  Commission
Procedural  Rule  42,  29  C.F.R.  § 2700.42, are held to setting
forth a short and plain statement of  the  facts constituting the
alleged discrimination and a statement of the  relief  requested.
Ribble  v.  T & M Development Company, 22 FMSHRC 593 (May  2000).
The Commission  continues  to  caution  that  they  should not be
required  to begin proving a prima facie case at the stage  where
they are simply held to meeting the Commission's minimal pleading
requirements.  Id. at 595 (quoting Perry v. Phelps Dodge Morenci,
Inc., 18 FMSHRC 1918, 1921 (November 1996).

     In this  case, Complainant has met the Commission's pleading
requirements and, in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, his complaint is construed in the light
most favorable to him and his allegations are assumed to be true.
Therefore, he must  be  afforded  the  opportunity  to  prove his
allegations at hearing.



     Accordingly,  Respondent's  Motion to Dismiss Discrimination
Complaint, on both grounds, is hereby DENIED, and the hearing set
in this matter shall proceed, as scheduled.


                             Jacqueline R. Bulluck
                             Administrative Law Judge
                             (703) 756-6210


Distribution: (Certified Mail)

William C. Green, P.O. Box 1241, Pound, VA 24279

Julia K. Shreve, Esq., Jackson & Kelly, PLLC, 1600 Laidley Tower,
P.O. Box 553, Charleston, WV 25322

\mca