Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-121-S.
March 28, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Roger Simpson, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks $750,000 in damages in this employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. This matter is before the Court for screening of the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The Court will allow the case to proceed against Defendant, Royal Consumer Products Group, listed on the notice of right to sue letter.
I.
When an individual initiates a civil action in forma pauperis, a district court must screen the complaint and dismiss any claim that is "frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997). The district court must liberally construe the allegations in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all factual allegations as true. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998); Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002); see also Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003). A complaint fails to state a claim only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 867 (6th Cir. 2000).
II.
Plaintiff, a black male, alleges he was discharged from employment on account of his race. Plaintiff states he had records showing he was hospitalized but was fired. Plaintiff also alleges that when he spoke out about "some wrongs" at a union meeting, unspecified individuals threatened him with bodily harm and made disparaging, racist remarks. Attached to the complaint is a notice of right to sue, dated November 22, 2004, from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This notice names Royal Consumer Products Group.
III.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1991) ("Title VII"), prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. By its terms, Title VII applies only to an "employer." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; see also Swanson v. University of Cincinnati, 268 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2001) (dismissing a defendant based on the absence of an employer-employee relationship).
It is difficult to discern who Plaintiff intends to sue. Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, "In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties. . . ." The title of the complaint is ambiguous: It is not clear whether it names more than one entity. There is no consistency between the title and body of the complaint or the summonses.
The title of the complaint reads, "Consumer Products, Millem ATL, Royals Lace, All concern, Inc., Co., and Union Unite." The body of the complaint names, "Royal Lace Consumer Pord AtL Inc." The EEOC's notice names "Royal Consumer Products Group."
Plaintiff has tendered five summonses: 1) "AtL, Millem, Consumer Products, Royal Lace Inc. All, Co., All Concern, and Union, Unite and Their Party. 1120 West Magnolia;" 2) AtL Royal Lace, Consumer Products AtL ATL Millem, All Concern, Inc., Co." 3) Beth Amburey, 1120 Magnolia; 4) Mike Hoagland, 1120 Magnolia; and 5) Mike Hanby and Butch Marrow.
Before bringing a Title VII action in federal court, a plaintiff must file an administrative charge with the EEOC. Jones v. Truck Drivers Local Union, 748 F.2d 1083, 1086 (6th Cir. 1984). A corollary of this general rule is that a party must be named in the EEOC charge before that party may be sued under Title VII. Id.
The Court will, therefore, construe the title of the complaint to be consistent with the EEOC's notice, naming a single entity, Royal Consumer Products Group, located at 1120 West Magnolia. The Court will not consider other companies ambiguously listed in the title or body of the complaint, nor will the Court consider individuals named only in the summonses.
Accordingly, the Court will allow a Title VII claim of discriminatory discharge to proceed against Defendant, Royal Consumer Products Group. The Court cautions that it expresses no opinion concerning the ultimate merit of Plaintiff's claim. The Court reserves ruling on the legal sufficiency of the complaint until submitted to the Court on appropriate motion from the parties.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) The Clerk of Court shall effect service of process of the complaint on Royal Consumer Products Group, located at 1120 West Magnolia, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(2) Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to the to the complaint no later than 20 days after service of summons. An answer to the complaint is to restate in separate paragraphs the allegations of the complaint, followed by Defendant's answer.
(3) Each party shall serve upon the other, or counsel if so represented, a copy of each document filed in this action as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including a certificate of service stating the date on which the copy was sent to the opposing party. Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk, or which fails to include a certificate of service, WILL BE DISREGARDED by the Court.
(4) Plaintiff shall keep the Clerk of Court informed of his current mailing address. Failure to notify the Clerk of any address change, or failure to comply with this or any subsequent Order of the Court, MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE.