Dumas v. Kelly Services, Inc. et al
Filing
5
OPINION and ORDER Conditionally Dismissing 1 Complaint, ( Amended Complaint due by 12/18/2015) Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (JJoh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LOWANA S. DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-13511
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
v.
KELLY SERVICES, INC.,
JOHN NICHOLSON,
TRACI HOPPER,
DAVID EAGER,
RICK PATTERSON,
POTTER, DEAGOSTINO, O'DEA &
PATTERSON, AND
FLINT TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER CONDITIONALLY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
Lowana Dumas filed a pro se complaint alleging employment discrimination and
numerous other federal and state laws that Defendants allegedly violated. (See Dkt. 1, Compl. at
2.) She utilized a form complaint for Title VII claims. (See generally Compl.) Paragraph 11 of
the form requires the Plaintiff to affirm that a “copy of my charge to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission is attached to this Complaint and is submitted as a brief statement of
the facts of this claim.” (Id.) Here, however, the EEOC charge is not attached. Thus, Plaintiff’s
Complaint consists of mere conclusory statements. This presents an issue because Dumas has
requested (Dkt. 2), and the Court will grant, Dumas the right to proceed without prepayment of
fees and costs. And when a plaintiff is granted such a request, a court must dismiss the complaint
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Hill v.
Lapin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th
Cir. 1997).
That is the case here. The factual matter of Dumas’s complaint comprises of only the
following: (1) “Future employment was promised and opportunities which plaintiff was qualified
for were available, but plaintiff was denied any further employment” and (2) “Employment was
terminated following request for accommodations.” This does not provide enough factual
background to make it plausible that Defendants violated the dozen or so state and federal laws
that Dumas lists in her complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)). For instance, Dumas’s complaint does not say which defendant
made the alleged promises, what that defendant promised, how that defendant broke its promise,
and how that broken promise violated the law.
The Court thus orders as follows. Dumas’s application to proceed without prepayment of
fees and costs (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED. Dumas has until December 18, 2015 to file an amended
complaint setting forth facts making it plausible that each defendant is liable. In drafting her
amended complaint, Dumas should be mindful that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require
that allegations be pled in good faith and that it is possible that not all legal theories apply to all
defendants. If an amended complaint is not filed by December 18, 2015, this case will be
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 23, 2015
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys
and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on November 23, 2015.
s/Jane Johnson
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?