You're viewing Docket Item 9 from the case Davis v. Kessler Sales and Distribution. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

WESTERN DIVISION

Case No. 13-0669-CV-W-ODS




Plaintiff,








)
JOHNELL DAVIS,
)

)

)

)
vs.

)
KESSLER SALES AND DISTRIBUTION,)

)

)




Defendant.


































ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND (2) DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

This case was removed from state court. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated



the case with a document alleging Defendant fired him “without merit” and with the
intent of discriminating against Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. No further
explanation – either legal or factual – is supplied. No specific cause of action is alleged,
so the Court does not know whether Plaintiff intends to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), the
United States Constitution, or something else entirely. Regardless, Plaintiff clearly
asserts some claim arising from the First Amendment, and on that basis Defendant
removed the case to federal court. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, contending
Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII are time-barred. Plaintiff has not responded to the
motion and the time for doing so has passed.

not certain Plaintiff is asserting a Title VII claim – as noted, the nature of Plaintiff’s claim
is not evident from his pleading, but there is no mention of a Title VII claim. Defendants
contend Plaintiff previously filed an administrative complaint with the EEOC, but even if
this is true that does not mean Plaintiff is asserting a Title VII claim arising from that
administrative complaint.

Defendant’s motion (Doc. # 3) is denied without prejudice because the Court is

Case 4:13-cv-00669-ODS Document 9 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2


In light of the lack of clarity, the Court will take the initiative and direct Plaintiff to
file an Amended Complaint setting forth the basis for his claim by describing the nature
of the claim or his legal theory (which is not expected to be consistent with standards of
the legal profession given Plaintiff’s pro se status) and the factual basis for his claim. If
his claim arises under either Title VII or the MHRA, Plaintiff must also supply the
appropriate Right to Sue Letter. Once that is done, Defendant is free to re-assert its
arguments if it appears Plaintiff is asserting a Title VII claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.







DATE: July 29, 2013

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff shall comply with this Order on or before August 13, 2013.





















Case 4:13-cv-00669-ODS Document 9 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2

2