Rayford, Jr. v. Hospital Service Associates, Inc.

Filing 10

Memorandum Opinion and Order: It is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) and this case is closed; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs 5 , 9 , and [9-1] Motions be, and the same hereb y are, DENIED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new Motions or documents in this case; and the Court FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge James R. Knepp II on 3/11/2025. Copy sent to Kibwe Rayford, Jr., Apt. A, 1657 Botkins Drive, Toledo, OH 43605 by regular U.S. Mail on 3/11/2025.(R,EM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
KIBWE RAYFORD, JR.,

CASE NO. 3:25 CV 362

Plaintiff,
v.

JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

HOSPITAL SERVICE ASSOCIATES,
INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION
This Complaint is one of many in a long line of employment discrimination cases with
which pro se Plaintiff Kibwe Rayford, Jr. has flooded the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas
and, in turn, this Federal Court upon removal by the Defendants. See Rayford, Jr. v. Amazon.com
Services, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-02195-JGC (N.D. Ohio) (removed Dec. 17, 2024); Rayford, Jr. v. Kyle
Media, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00269-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 12, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v.
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00294-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 14,
2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00326-JJH (N.D. Ohio)
(removed Feb. 18, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Sigma Technologies, Ltd., No. 3:25-cv-00329-JJH (N.D.
Ohio) (removed Feb. 18, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., No. 3:25cv-00332-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 18, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. CCFI Companies, LLC, No.
3:25-cv-00338-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 19, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-00345-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 20, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v.
Whiteford Kenworth, No. 3:25-cv-00347-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 20, 2025); Rayford, Jr.
v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3:25-cv-00348-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 20, 2025); Rayford,

Jr. v. Lucas County Workforce Development, No. 3:25-cv-00350-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb.
21, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Board of Lucas County Commissioners, No. 3:25-cv-00351-JRK (N.D.
Ohio) (removed Feb. 21, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Hospital Service Associates, Inc., No. 3:25-cv00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 24, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Hirzel Canning Company, 3:25cv-00365-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 24, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Impact Employment
Solutions, 3:25-cv-00366-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 24, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Concord
Care Center of Toledo, No. 3:25-cv-00372-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 25, 2025); Rayford,
Jr. v. Northwest Ohio Realtors, No. 3:25-cv-00380-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 26, 2025);
Rayford, Jr. v. Community Health Services, No. 3:25-cv-00381-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb.
26, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Libbey Glass LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00382-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb.
26, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Fresh Products, LLC, 3:25-cv-00432-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Mar.
4, 2025).
BACKGROUND
In each of the removed actions, Plaintiff utilizes the same self-styled form Complaint,
changing only the name of the defendant and the position for which he applied. In all other
respects, the form is the same in each case. The form Complaints contain no facts specific to their
respective case and simply list causes of action as Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 42112, and Title XV the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act (“EEOA”) 47 U.S.C. §554. The form states only that he applied for a position and contains
spaces for him to write in the job for which he applied, the date he applied, and the date on which
the application was denied. The form then states that although he “surpass [sic]or meets the
qualifications, … [he] was not selected for Interview or considered for hiring practices.” (Doc. 11, at 3). The form Complaint states:
The discriminatory conduct of which Plaintiff complain [sic] in this action includes:
2

o Failure to Hire
o Unequal terms and conditions of employment
o Retaliation
Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on:
o
o
o
o
o
o

Race
Color
Gender
National Origin
Disability
Education

Id. The form Complaint seeks $ 15,000.00 in damages. Id. at 4.
On the form Complaint in this case, Plaintiff named Hospital Service Associates, Inc. as a
defendant and indicated he applied for a position as “Assistant HR” on December 20, 2024. Id. at
4. These facts are the only factual allegations in the Complaint specific to this case. The rest of the
form reads as stated above.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court is required to construe a pro se Complaint liberally and to hold it to a less
stringent standard than one drafted by an attorney.1 Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248, 250 (6th
Cir. 2005) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Pursuant to Sixth Circuit precedent,
district courts are permitted to conduct a limited screening procedure and dismiss, sua sponte, a
fee-paid Complaint filed by a non-prisoner if it appears that the allegations are “totally implausible,
attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v.
Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
536-37 (1974)). Dismissal on a sua sponte basis is also authorized where the asserted claims lack

1. As an initial matter, Plaintiff indicates in a “Disclosure” attached to his form Complaint that he
attended law school. (Doc. 1-1, at 5). He does not indicate whether he graduated from law school
or passed a bar exam in any state. It is therefore not clear that Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint is
entitled to the liberal construction given to the pleadings prepared by non-attorneys who are not
familiar with the law and general pleading requirements.
3

an arguable basis in law, or if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
Id. at 480; see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196
(6th Cir. 1990).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s prolific filing of frivolous form Complaints is patently vexatious. Plaintiff filed
48 cases in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas in late January 2025, of which over 20 have
been removed to this federal court to date. Thirty of those cases were filed on the same day, January
17, 2025, and eighteen of them were filed five days later, on January 23, 2025. Each day, this
Court receives more cases using the same form Complaint. Plaintiff has not put forth a sincere
effort to draft a pleading that contains facts specific to each case or an explanation of why he
believes he is entitled to relief from any specific defendant under the various statutes identified.
The Complaints do not appear to seek real relief from the defendants. At best, this conduct could
be construed as a misguided attempt to supplement his income through frivolous litigation, hoping
one of these cases will produce a settlement or a judgment in his favor. Viewed less generously, it
could be construed as harassment of the defendants and courts. Neither is a proper use of this
Court’s time and resources.
The Court is aware that, at this stage, Plaintiff is not required to plead his discrimination
claims with heightened specificity. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 513-14 (2002).
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must still provide “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 677-78 (“[A] complaint [will not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.’”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The Sixth Circuit clarified the scope
of Twombly and Iqbal, noting that “even though a Complaint need not contain detailed factual
allegations, its ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
4

level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true.’” New Albany Tractor v.
Lousiville Tractor, 650 F.3d 1046, 1051 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)
(alteration in original).
Plaintiff’s Complaint never rises above the speculative level. He provides no facts specific
to this case, and the Court is left to guess his race, color, gender, national origin, and disability;
what the actual qualifications for the position were; whether Plaintiff truly met all of those
qualifications; and what facts, if any, support his assertion that a decision was made not to hire
him and that such decision was based on prohibited criteria.2 The form Complaint merely states
that he applied for a job and ultimately was not offered employment. Simply applying for a job,
even if fully qualified, does not guarantee employment, and failure to offer an employment
interview, alone, is not a violation of federal law. Plaintiff’s bare bones form Complaint, devoid
of factual allegations and composed entirely of legal conclusions, is not sufficient to meet even the
minimum basic pleading requirements in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a complaint must
provide “a short and plain statement of the claim” made by “simple, concise, and direct”
allegations); see also Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding
legal conclusions alone are not sufficient to present a valid claim, and court is not required to
accept “unwarranted factual inferences”). Plaintiff’s repeated filings of the same form Complaint
lacking any factual basis is frivolous. This case must be dismissed.
Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment (Doc. 5). And after being permanently
enjoined from filing new actions without leave of court, see Rayford v. Kyle Media, Inc., 3:25-cv00269 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2025) (Doc. 7), Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave/Notice of Prima
Facie (Docs. 9, 9-1). The two Motions are also self-styled forms that do not contain any facts

2. Indeed, the form Complaint has a line for the date on which Plaintiff was denied employment;
it is left blank. (Doc. 1-1, at 3).
5

specific to this or any other case. They are composed entirely of excerpts from statutes and case
citations, and they fail to add the crucial information needed to state a claim against this particular
defendant. The Motions are frivolous and are denied.
Furthermore, undeterred by the Court’s warnings against filing frivolous and harassing
bulk litigation, Plaintiff continued to engage in vexatious behavior by filing one or both of these
form Motions in at least twelve cases in this Court. See Rayford, Jr. v. Kyle Media, Inc, No. 3:25cv-00269-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 7). See Rayford, Jr. v. Kyle Media, Inc, No. 3:25-cv-00269-JRK
(N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2025) (Doc. 6); Rayford Jr. v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., No. 3:25cv-00294-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 7); Rayford, Jr. v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:25-cv00326-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 10); Rayford, Jr. v. CCFI Companies, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00338-JJH
(N.D. Ohio) (Docs. 4, 7); Rayford Jr. v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-00345JRK (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 4); Rayford, Jr. v. Whiteford Kenworth, No. 3:25-cv-00347-JJH (N.D.
Ohio removed Feb. 20, 2025) (Docs. 6,8); Rayford, Jr. v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3:25-cv00348-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (Docs. 4, 6); Rayford Jr. v. Hospital Service Associates, Inc., No. 3:25cv-00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 5); Rayford, Jr. v. Hirzel Canning Company, 3:25-cv-00365JRK (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 6); Rayford Jr. v. Impact Employment Solutions, 3:25-cv-00366-JRK
(N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 6); Rayford Jr. v. Concord Care Center of Toledo, No. 3:25-cv-00372-JJH
(N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 3); Rayford, Jr. v. Libbey Glass LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00382-JRK (N.D. Ohio)
(Doc. 4). This Court notes that Judge James G. Carr enjoined Plaintiff from filing additional
Motions in his case due to Plaintiff’s excessive filings. See Rayford Jr. v. Amazon.com Services,
LLC, No. 3:24-cv-02195 (N.D. Ohio). In light of Plaintiff’s behavior in this and other cases in this
federal court and in state court, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new Motions or documents in
this case.

6

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is
ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.
1999) and this case is closed; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions (Docs. 5, 9, 9-1) be, and the same hereby
are, DENIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new Motions or
documents in this case; and the Court
FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.
s/ James R. Knepp II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 11, 2025

7