United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Docs. 32, 33, 41, 46) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. 42) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 47) AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 28) AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 50) AND DISMISSING CASE
AVERN COHN, District Judge.
This is an employment dispute. Plaintiff Paula Pruitt, proceeding pro se, is suing defendants McLaren Regional Medical Center-Flint (McLaren), Cathleen M. Hipps, Teea Moore, and Lisa Rodgers. Before the Court are several motions. Each motion is addressed in turn below. In the end, Pruitt's motions will be denied, defendants' motions will be granted, and the case will be dismissed.
On April 5, 2013, Pruitt, an African-American woman, was terminated from her position as a Nurse Assistant II at McLaren for harassing and threatening another employee. She grieved her discharge and was represented by her union in arbitration. In February 2014, a hearing was held before an arbitrator. On April 17, 2013, the arbitrator issued a decision upholding McLaren's decision, finding Pruitt engaged in conduct which justified her termination under McLaren's applicable policies.
On July 7, 2013, Pruitt filed a charge of discrimination with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). On December 6, 2013, the MDCR issued a notice of dismissal.
On May 23, 2014, Pruitt filed a complaint against McLaren and the above individual defendants, asserting the following claims:
Count I - equal protection violations
Count II - race discrimination in violation of the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA)
Count III - retaliation in violation of Title VII
Count IV - retaliation in violation of the ELCRA
Count V - intentional infliction of emotional distress
In addition to challenging her termination as based on race, the complaint contains allegations of harassment and unfair treatment dating back to 2008 based on her race and for reporting safety violations.
On September 24, 2014, four months after filing the instant lawsuit, Pruitt filed a pro se bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the Eastern District of Michigan. In re Pruitt, 14-32603 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.). In her bankruptcy petition, Pruitt "declare[d] under penalty of perjury that the information provided in [her] petition is true and correct." See Ex. B to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47), bankruptcy petition at p. 3. Likewise, Pruitt declared under penalty of perjury that both her schedules and statement of financial affairs were true and correct. See id. at p. 38. In Schedule B to Pruitt's bankruptcy petition, she was required her to list and describe all of her assets, including, but not limited to, other "contingent and liquidated claims of every nature." See id. at p. 12, line 21. Pruitt swore, under penalty of perjury, that she had no such claims. Id. Likewise, Question 4 of the Statement of Financial Affairs required Pruitt to identify "all suits and administrative proceedings to which the debtor is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of this bankruptcy case." See id. at p. 30. Again, Pruitt answered under penalty of perjury, "None." Id. On December 24, 2014, the bankruptcy court discharged Pruitt's debts. See Doc. 27 in case no. 14-32603 and Exhibit B to defendants' motion at p. 39.
III. The Pending Motions
As noted above, there are several motions pending before the ...