Matthew v. Building Security Services Owner

Background

Izeh Matthew filed the action without a lawyer, invoking federal-question jurisdiction and alleging violations of federal constitutional rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront. The complaint named the unidentified owner of Building Security Service, “Craig,” identified as a recruiter for BSS Security, “Emeka,” identified as a BSS Security officer, and the unidentified owner of Highland Park Community Security Company. The opinion notes that the complaint and caption used inconsistent spellings and that the court assumed the spellings it identified were correct.

Matthew alleged that defendants falsely accused him of theft, harassed and insulted him at work, interfered with his employment, and caused loss of income and depression. He also alleged racial discrimination, stating that he is Black and from Nigeria. He sought help involving police, reinstatement of his job, unrestricted ability to work, payment for lost time, and additional monetary compensation.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening standard for complaints filed without upfront filing fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or raises claims over which the court lacks jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed by people without lawyers are read generously but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting for the government. The court held that Matthew failed to state this claim because BSS Security, its owner and employee “Craig,” and the Highland Park owner were private parties, and the complaint did not allege that they worked for a government body.

Employment-discrimination claims. The court read the complaint generously as possibly asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. It explained that a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts showing that a protected characteristic motivated that action. For a Section 1981 employment claim, the plaintiff must also plausibly allege that race was the necessary cause of the loss of a legally protected right.

The court held that the complaint did not provide enough facts for either claim. It was unclear whether Matthew had worked for or applied to BSS Security or Highland Park, and it was unclear whether either entity had taken an adverse employment action against him. Although he identified himself as Black and from Nigeria and used the phrase “racial discrimination,” he did not allege facts showing that race, national origin, or another protected characteristic motivated the employment action, or that race was its necessary cause.

State-law claims. Because the court allowed Matthew to amend his federal claims, it postponed deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretion to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

Disposition

The court granted Matthew 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must include the facts and claims he wants the court to consider. The court directed him to identify relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it happened, describe his injuries, and identify the relief sought. The court also stated that he should name his employer as a defendant in any amended complaint.

No summons would issue at that time. If Matthew failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.