UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ELOI KOUEKASSAZO,

 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

INTELLISOURCE, ZULILY, INC., 

REMINGER CO.,

 Defendants.

 Case No. 2:18-CV-00061-GCS

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMEDNATION

Plaintiff, Eloi Kouekassazo, an Ohio resident who is proceeding without the assistance of 

counsel, brings this action against Defendants Intellisource, Zulily, Inc., and Reminger Co. This 

matter is before the undersigned for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in 

forma pauperis (Doc. 1) and the initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. All judicial 

officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C . 

§ 1915(a). Furthermore, having performed an initial screen, for the reasons that follow, it is 

RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought a previous lawsuit in this Court that is relevant to the current litigation. 

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination action 

against Defendants IntelliSource and zulily, inc. n/k/a zulily, llc. Lawyers from Reminger Co. 

LPA represented the defendants in that action. (See generally Case No. 2-15-cv-2437). This 

Court granted Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion and terminated the case. (2-15-cv-2437, 
Doc. 65). Plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment. (2-15-cv2437, Doc. 71).

Now, in this proceeding, Plaintiff has again sued his former employers (Intellisource and 

Zulily, Inc.) and also the law firm that represented them in the previous lawsuit (Reminger Co., 

LPA). The thrust of Plaintiff’s Complaint seems to be that Defendants committed mail fraud by 

mailing pleadings from Case No. 2-15-cv-2437 to him directly. (See, e.g., Doc. 1-1 at 3 (“The 

mail that I received in September 2016, containing the decision about the case was supposed to 

from the district Court, but it was from Reminger Co instead.”). Plaintiff also claims Defendants 

have intentionally caused him emotional distress. (Id. at 4).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the Complaint, 

or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to set 

forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In 

reviewing the Complaint, the Court must construe it in favor of Plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded 

factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). On the other hand, a 

complaint that consists of “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action” is insufficient. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Although pro se
complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “basic 

pleading essentials” are still required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

III. DISCUSSION

In Counts I and II of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1341, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The mail fraud statute, however, is criminal. And, 

importantly, there is no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Bell v. Health-Mor Inc., 

549 F.2d 342, 346 (5th Cir.1977) (“There is no private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a 

criminal statute prohibiting mail fraud.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s mail fraud claim fails.

Further, to the extent Plaintiff alleges general fraud, such a claim arises under state law. 

See 500 Assocs. v. Vt. Am. Corp., 496 F. App'x 589, 591 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Fraud is a state-law 

claim[.]”). The same is true for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the third count in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. See, e.g., Blackshear v. Interstate Brands Corp., 495 F. App’x 613, 619–

20 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting the state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and 

applying Ohio law). When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, state-law claims 

“generally should be dismissed as well.” Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701, 709 (6th Cir. 2009). 

Because Plaintiff’s federal claim must be dismissed, the Undersigned recommends not exercising 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3). See Mathis v. Doctor's Hosp. (West), No. 2:12-cv-358, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

80190 *9–10 (S.D. Ohio June 11, 2012) (adopting recommendation not to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction where federal claims failed).

In sum, Counts I and II fail because Plaintiff has no private cause of action under the mail 

fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The remaining claims (fraud and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress) arise under state law. As such, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 
which relief can be granted. Consequently, the undersigned recommends dismissal. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2).

Procedure on Objections to Report and Recommendation

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with 

supporting authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 

to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further 

evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 2, 2018

/s/Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE