Sambou v. Dearborn Hospitality, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EBRIMA SAMBOU, Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-12153 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker DEARBORN HOSPITALITY, LLC, et al., Defendants. ________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges national origin discrimination based on wrongful termination and a hostile work environment and retaliation. (See generally ECF No. 1.) She claims federal subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question and diversity. (See id. at PageID.19.) The Court is granting Plaintiff’s IFP application. However, because the Complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Court is requiring Plaintiff to file an amended pleading.

When a complaint is filed IFP, the district court must conduct a summary review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 604- (6th Cir. 1997). Upon review, the court must dismiss the action if it determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The reviewing court must liberally construe a pro se pleading. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “‘state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that each defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but it must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . ..” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint does not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Even when held to a less stringent standard, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8. For starters, it is unclear who Plaintiff is naming as Defendants.

The heading of her Complaint identifies the following: Kayliegh “Clerk/Young,” Roger Young, Richard Roser, and Bala Palanisamy. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.17.)

However, in section I.B of the form, she identifies as Defendants: Dearborn Hospitality LLC, Level Hospitality Group, Roger Young, Richard Roser, Bala Palanisamy, and Kayleigh Clerk-Young. (Id. at PageID.18-20.) Plaintiff claims national original discrimination based on a hostile work environment and her termination and retaliation, and she describes conduct by Young, Roser, and Palanisamy (see id. at PageID.21-23), but she does not identify which corporate entity employed her, why both are sued, or conduct of Clerk-Young to hold her liable for the alleged misconduct.1 The Charge of Discrimination attached to

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not offer more specific information. (See id. at PageID.27.)

Further, Plaintiff checked the box on the “Civil Cover Sheet” for “Other Labor Litigation” (id. at PageID.28); however, liberally construing her Complaint, she is alleging a civil rights employment violation. It is unclear, though, whether she is claiming a violation of federal law—liberally construed to likely be Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”)—and/or state law—liberally construed to be Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”). Notably, “an individual employee/supervisor, who does not qualify as an ‘employer,’ may not be held personally liable under Title VII.”2 Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir. 1997). In comparison, an individual can be held liable under Michigan’s civil rights statute if the individual “is responsible for making personnel decisions.” Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428, 434 (6th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Under ELCRA, a non-employer defendant can be liable if it “affected or controlled a term, condition, or privilege of the worker’s employment.” McClements v. Ford Motor Co., 702 N.W.2d 166, 174-75 (Mich. 2005).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of this Opinion and Order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8 to cure the deficiencies described above.3 The failure to timely file an amended pleading or the filing of an amended pleading which fails to state a claim against a defendant named therein may result in a dismissal of that defendant without further notice. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 23, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, July 23, 2025, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.

s/Aaron Flanigan Case Manager