Smith, Matthew v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER that plaintiff Matthew Smith is DENIED leave to proceed on his claims against defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. The 1 complaint and 2 amended complaint are DISMISSED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plainti ff may have until December 3, 2014, to file an amended complaint that provides a short and plain statement of his claims against defendant. If plaintiff fails to timely amend his complaint, the court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/03/2014. (nln),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MATTHEW ALAN SMITH,

v.

Plaintiff,

OPINION & ORDER
14-cv-438-jdp

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Matthew Smith filed both a proposed complaint and, on the same day, a
proposed “amended complaint” supplementing his first submission (which I will read together as
the “complaint”). Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 2. Plaintiff alleges that defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.
(UPS) wrongfully terminated him, although his complaint is inconsistent as to why the
termination was unlawful. Parts of the complaint suggest a breach of contract, others discuss
negligence, and still others rely on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101 et seq.
The court granted plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of his filing fees. Dkt. 4.
The next step in this case is for the court to screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any portion
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
asks for monetary damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations
of the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). After reviewing the
complaint with this principle in mind, I conclude that plaintiff has not provided a short and
plain statement of a claim for unlawful termination under any of his proposed legal theories. I
will therefore dismiss plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety, but allow him an opportunity to
amend.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Although legible, plaintiff’s submissions are neither clear nor coherent. In his complaint,
plaintiff alleges that “[t]here was (Negligence in Accommodation and then Termination)
between the Plaintiff, UPS, and its Counseling Firm Holland and Hart (Cause UPS).” Dkt. 1, at
2. Plaintiff mentions the ADA, but his complaint also sounds in negligence and in breach of
contract. See id. (“[T]he relief sought there can be proven through Res Ipsa Loquitor and
otherwise.”); Dkt. 2 (“The company has broken and deceptively manipulated contract as
asserted through all claims.”). Plaintiff does not allege, however, that he ever worked for UPS.
Plaintiff also does not explain when any of the relevant events occurred, what disability UPS
allegedly failed to accommodate, or why this case belongs in a federal court in Wisconsin. The
first submission alleges that UPS “resides” in Missouri and the second alleges that the company
had “offices formerly located in the State of Wisconsin” but presently “resides” in Georgia. Both
submissions allege that plaintiff resides in Colorado, although the exact address differs from one
submission to the next. At no point in either document does plaintiff identify events or
omissions that occurred in Wisconsin.
One fact not discussed in the complaint is that this is not plaintiff’s first federal lawsuit
against UPS. In fact, he has filed several suits with nearly identical complaints in a number of
other districts. See, e.g., Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 14-cv-131 (W.D. Mich. filed June
16, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 14-cv-1388 (E.D. La. filed June 12, 2014); Smith v.
United Parcel Serv., No. 14-cv-109 (D. Alaska filed June 2, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No.
14-cv-102 (D. Vt. filed May 15, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 14-cv-229 (D. Haw.
filed May 14, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 14-cv-744 (C.D. Cal. filed May 13, 2014);
Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 14-cv-21175 (S.D. Fla. filed April 2, 2014); Smith v. United
Parcel Serv., No. 14-cv-951 (N.D. Ga. filed March 31, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 14-

2

cv-237 (D. Utah filed March 28, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 14-cv-787 (D.
Colo. filed March 17, 2014); Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 13-cv-1815 (D. Colo. filed July 10,
2013). With the exception of his first case in the District of Colorado, each of these complaints
has been dismissed for failure to state a claim, lack of venue, or overall frivolousness. Even in the
lone case where plaintiff was permitted to proceed past the screening stage, the court ultimately
entered summary judgment in favor of UPS and the Tenth Circuit dismissed his appeal. See
Smith v. United Parcel Serv., No. 13-1483, 2014 WL 4377680, at *4 (10th Cir. Sept. 5, 2014).

ANALYSIS
At this point, it appears that plaintiff’s case will meet the same fate in this court as it has
in so many other federal district courts. Yet, because I must liberally construe plaintiff’s filings,
and because it is conceivable that he could plausibly allege a claim for wrongful termination, I
will afford plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint.
Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from several defects, but I will discuss the three most serious
deficiencies. First, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a plaintiff must present “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” The purpose of the
requirement is “to provide the defendant with ‘fair notice’ of the claim and its basis.” Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8.
He offers a series of legal conclusions, but virtually no facts, and I will therefore dismiss his
complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he must provide fair notice to UPS of the claim he is
asserting against the company. He should draft his complaint as if he were telling a story to
people who know nothing about his situation. This means that someone reading the complaint
should be able to answer the following questions:

3

•

What was plaintiff’s relationship with UPS? Was he an employee, applicant for
employment, or a customer?

•

What are the facts that form the basis for plaintiff’s claim? For example, why does
plaintiff believe that UPS failed to accommodate his disability or breached its
contract with him?

•

When and where did the acts or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s complaint
occur?

Plaintiff must set forth these facts in separate, numbered paragraphs, using short and plain
statements. He should present his entire complaint in one document.
A second, and related, problem with plaintiff’s complaint is that it does not explain why
venue is proper in the Western District of Wisconsin. UPS could ultimately waive objections to
venue and a district court generally cannot sua sponte dismiss a case for improper venue. See Auto.
Mechs. Local 701 Welfare & Pension Funds v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 502 F.3d 740, 746
(7th Cir. 2007). But a review of the complaint suggests that plaintiff’s case would be vulnerable
to dismissal for improper venue because there is no allegation of any events or omissions that
occurred in Wisconsin. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he should explain why he is bringing his
suit in this district.
Finally, in light of plaintiff’s substantial and unsuccessful history of filing this exact same
complaint in other federal district courts, there is reason to question whether plaintiff’s claims
are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Again, claim preclusion would be an affirmative
defense for UPS to raise, but “when the existence of a valid affirmative defense is so plain from
the face of the complaint that the suit can be regarded as frivolous, the district judge need not
wait for an answer before dismissing the suit.” Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th
Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has filed nearly identical complaints in at least 11 other federal district
courts. In the only case where his complaint was not dismissed at the outset, UPS won summary

4

judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he must explain how this case
presents different claims from those already decided on the merits in other courts.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Matthew Smith is DENIED leave to proceed on his claims against defendant
United Parcel Service, Inc.
2. The complaint, Dkt. 1, and amended complaint, Dkt. 2, are DISMISSED for failure
to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff may have until December
3, 2014, to file an amended complaint that provides a short and plain statement of
his claims against defendant.
3. If plaintiff fails to timely amend his complaint, the court will dismiss this action, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Entered this 3rd day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5