Opinion
Case No. 4:02-CV-155
September 19, 2002
OPINION
The Court has before it Plaintiff's complaint, in which she has sued Defendants, Western Michigan University (the "University") and A.F.S.M.E. Local 1668, Western Michigan Employees (the "Union"). Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed two previous complaints against the University and the Union, which were assigned case numbers 4:02-CV-20 and 4:02-CV-47. On July 18, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing Case No. 4:02-CV-20 for the reason that Plaintiff failed to comply with an order entered by the magistrate judge requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. That same day, the Court entered an order dismissing Case No. 4:02-CV-47 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to allege the existence of a federal claim. Plaintiff has now filed another pro se complaint against the University and the Union.
On August 27, 2002, the magistrate judge entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss any action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. See Begola v. Brown, No. 97-2194, 1998 WL 894722, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 14, 1998) (stating that "[t]he screening procedures established by § 1915 apply to complaints filed by prisoners as well as non-prisoners whether they have paid the entire filing fee or are proceeding in forma pauperis"). The Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and because Plaintiff's claim against the University is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Plaintiff's complaint consists of three pages, two of which purport to set forth her claims. Under the heading "Complaint I," Plaintiff lists what appear to be five legal principals. For example, paragraph 1 states, "The worker's compensation law does not deprive a worker of the right to sue under civil rights statutes, labor laws and other similar acts." Paragraph 2 states, "'Intentional torts' is an exception." Paragraph 3 states, "Constitutional Right: Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S.E. 561, 567, L.R.A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685." The remaining paragraphs under "Complaint I" and the two paragraphs under "Complaint II" are of a similar nature. Finally, Plaintiff attaches a copy of a letter dated November 15, 2001, from Umar Abdul-Mutakallim, Manager of Building Custodial and Support Services for the University, to Plaintiff notifying Plaintiff of the termination of her employment by the University.
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alleging a claim is not burdensome under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All that is required is "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a)(2). Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy this requirement. Plaintiff fails to include any facts indicating that she has a claim or is even asserting a claim. Essentially, a reader of the complaint is left to speculate about the basis of Plaintiff's complaint. For example, is Plaintiff claiming that Defendants, or either one of them, somehow violated her federal constitutional rights, i.e., due process, in connection with her apparent termination? Perhaps, by naming the University and the Union as defendants, Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim against them under a federal labor law, such the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, or perhaps a hybrid wrongful discharge/breach of duty of fair representation claim under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. In short, Plaintiff has simply failed to allege a claim.
In either case, Plaintiff's claims would be barred because state governmental employers are exempted from both the Labor Management Relations Reporting and Disclosure Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. See A've v. Sowels, No. 97-1752, 1998 WL 152749, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 1998); Greene v. Hawes, 913 F. Supp. 136, 142 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
An additional basis exists for dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, namely, she has sued a defendant immune from suit in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment bars any suit, absent consent or waiver, against the state regardless of the form of relief requested. Pennhurst State Sch. Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98, 104 S.Ct. 900, 906-07 (1984). Both the Sixth Circuit, in an unreported decision, and another judge in this district have determined that the University is an arm of the State of Michigan entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Pomeroy v. W. Mich. Univ., No. 97-1751, 2001 WL 223868 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2001) (per curiam); Wunderlinv. W. Mich. Univ., No. 4:01-CV-13, 2001 WL 1301214, at *3-4 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 20, 2001). Thus, as an alternative basis, Plaintiff's suit against the University must be dismissed on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Therefore, the Court will enter an Order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for the reasons stated above.