United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MOHAMMED F. MUGAHER, Plaintiff,
SODECIA CORP., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 10) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE (DOC. 12) 
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an employment case. Plaintiff Mohammed F. Mugaher (Mugaher)
is proceeding pro se and without payment of the filing fee.
Mugaher has sued defendant Sodecia Corp. (Sodecia) claiming
that he was discriminated against him in violation of Title
VII by paying him less per hour than his co-workers. He says
this discrimination was due to his race and national origin.
the Court is Sodecia's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, improper service, and failure to state a claim.
(Doc. 10). Also before the Court is Mugaher's motion for
the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 12). Both motions will be
denied without prejudice. The reasons follow.
January 24, 2017, Mugaher filed a Complaint of Employment
Discrimination, using the Title VII form complaint provided
by the Clerk's Office. He states the dates of the alleged
discriminatory conduct as February 15, 2015 to July 2015. The
short narrative statement of his claim is as follows:
I was working with this employer in Sterling Heights then we
had a choice to be laid off or transferred to Roseville
facility. I wanted to transfer with 5 other workers also we
were being paid $11 an hr. I actually made $18 hr. at
Sterling Heights. Everyone was paid their regular pay except
me. I was paid only $11 an hour.
marked the boxes for "race" and "national
origin" as the alleged basis for the discriminatory
treatment. Attached to the complaint is Mugaher's right
to sue letter from the EEOC. The notice states that the EEOC
closed its file because it was not able to conclude there was
a violation but made no definitive finding. Notably, the EEOC
did not close the file on the grounds that Mugaher was
untimely in filing a charge. The right to sue letter is dated
October 26, 2017. Mugaher's complaint was filed within 90
days of the right to sue letter.
Motion to Dismiss
Rule 12(b)(6) a complaint must be dismissed if it does not
"contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The
plausibility standard demands more than a "sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."
Id. Rather, for a claim to be facially plausible, a
plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at
1949. Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a
plaintiffs pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court need
not accept as true "legal conclusions or unwarranted
factual inferences." In Re Packaged Ice Antitrust
Litig., 723 F.Supp.2d 987, 1002 (E.D. Mich. 2010)
(quoting Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476
(6th Cir. 2007)).
Court must read pro se complaints 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).
says that Mugaher's complaint must be dismissed (1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) for improper ...