Akatov et al v. Woodward

Filing 4

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 2/26/18 granting plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order to amend their complaint as set forth in this order. Plaintiffs are notified that this case will be subject to automatic dismissal if they fail to file an amended complaint as set forth in this entry within thirty days. (Related Doc. 2 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
ALEXANDER AKATOV, and
:
SVETLANA AKATOV,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
vs.
:
:
KATHRYN WOODWARD,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01044

ORDER

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiffs Alexander Akatov (“Alexander”) and Svetlana Akatov (“Svetlana”)
filed this action against GE Health Care (“GE”) Senior Labor and Employment Counsel
Kathryn Woodward. In the Complaint, Alexander alleges ideas he submitted to his then
employer, GE, were not taken seriously, and he was not given jobs within the company for
which he applied. Svetlana alleges her employment was terminated in 2008. Both Plaintiffs
indicate they are asserting claims for “torts... hostile environment for the submissions of a lot of
the tested engineering submissions presented to the Company,” negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, disparagement, diverse collusion, harassment over submissions, and
promotion discrimination.1 They do not indicate the relief they seek.

1

Doc. No. 1 at 2.

Plaintiffs also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.2 That Application is
granted.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is composed entirely of unconnected allegations which appear to
presume the Court is aware of the background information supporting them. They attach 77
pages of exhibits, which give the Court some indication of what potentially may have occurred;
however, Plaintiffs do not clearly allege what they believe happened. Instead, they rely on the
Court to piece together the factual basis for their Complaint. Svetlana states only that she was
unfairly terminated in 2008. She does not provide any other factual allegations concerning her
employment with GE. The only person named as a Defendant is GE’s senior labor and
employment counsel; however, Plaintiffs do not allege any facts concerning her, and none of the
exhibits attached to the Complaint pertain to her personally. Plaintiffs indicate they are
asserting claims for employment discrimination; however, they do not identify a basis for
discrimination prohibited by a federal statute, nor do they allege facts to suggest why they
believe discrimination was involved in GE’s actions. Finally, Plaintiffs suggest they may be
bringing tort claims but they have not provided enough information for the Court to identify
which claims they are attempting to assert or the factual basis for these claims.
Although the standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, it is not without limits.3
The Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff's legal claims are and
the factual grounds upon which they rest.4 The Court cannot formulate factual allegations never

2

Doc. No. 2.

3

Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726-27 (6th Cir. 1996).

4

Id. at 726; Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).
-2-

squarely presented in the Complaint or to construct full blown legal claims from sentence
fragments.5 To do so would require the Court to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a
pro se Plaintiff, and would transform the Court from its legitimate role of adjudicating disputes
to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful
strategies for the Plaintiffs.6 It also places an unfair burden on the Defendant to speculate on the
potential claims Plaintiffs may be raising against her and the defenses she might assert in
response to each of these possible causes of action.7 Neither the Court nor the Defendant are
obligated to search through the Complaint and its numerous exhibits in order to identify
pertinent facts and potential legal claims. It is Plaintiffs’ responsibility to edit and organize
their claims and supporting allegations into a manageable format.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis8 is granted.
Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to amend their Complaint to set
forth more clearly all of their intended claims for relief against any and all persons or entities
they intend to name as Defendants to this action. Plaintiffs are notified that this case will be

5

Beaudett, 775 F.2d at 1278.

6

Id. at 1278.

7

See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985).
8

Doc. No. 2.
-3-

subject to automatic dismissal if they fail to file an amended Complaint that corrects the
deficiencies outlined above within thirty days.9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2018

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 1998); Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1112
(6th Cir. 1983).
-4-