UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

KAREN LENTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10975

TIMOTHY BRUCE, ET AL.,

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s

July 22, 2009 order, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the order, the court held

that Plaintiff failed to state a claim because she did not name the correct defendant. 

Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its opinion and order pursuant to Eastern District of

Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g) .

On March 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The alleged events occurred while she was

employed by the U.S. Postal Service, so she sued various managers with the U.S.

Postal Service. On June 23, 2009, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, raising five

arguments supporting dismissal of all or part of Plaintiff’s claim. Ultimately, the court

agreed with Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s case should be dismissed because

she did not name the correct defendant. Accordingly, in its order granting dismissal the

court did not address any of Defendant’s other arguments. Under Eastern District of

Michigan Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)(B) a brief in response to a dispositive motion must be

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 19 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 242
filed within 10 days of service of the motion. Plaintiff filed no response to Defendants’

motion to dismiss. Nearly a month after Defendants mailed the motion to dismiss to

Plaintiff, the court granted the motion. After dismissal, Plaintiff retained counsel and

filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting Defendants’ motion

to dismiss. 

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g) provides that a motion for

reconsideration shall be granted only if the movant can (1) “demonstrate a palpable

defect by which the court and the parties have been misled,” and (2) show that

“correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(g)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest,

or plain.’” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing

United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)). 

Here, Defendant has failed to meet this standard. In granting Defendant’s motion

to dismiss the court reasoned:

Defendants argue that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint

because it does not name the proper defendant as required by statute for

Plaintiff to bring her suit. (Defs.’ Mot. at 7.) Title VII requires that “the

head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the

defendant” in suits brought under it. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). The Sixth

Circuit has also explained that § 2000e-16(c) “‘mandates who may be a

proper defendant in civil actions brought by federal employees to enforce

rights under Title VII,’” and that failure to follow the statute’s requirements

will result in dismissal. Mulhall v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 543, 550 (6th [Cir.

2002)]. Under the statute and the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit, the

proper defendant in this case is the head of the United States Postal

Service, the Postmaster General. Stiles v. Frank, Nos. 91- 5454, 91-5455,

91-5648, 1992 WL 188111 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 1992) (finding that the only

proper defendant in an employment discrimination action against a federal

agency is the Postmaster General when the federal agency at issue is the

United States Postal Service). Plaintiff named three Defendants, but did

not include the Postmaster General as a defendant in her complaint, and

the court will therefore dismiss her suit. See Hancock, 848 F.2d at 88

(“The proper defendant was not named in this action. Adherence to the

statute’s requirements is mandatory, and we are neither authorized nor

inclined to ignore its mandate.”). In addition, the Equal Employment

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 19 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 243
Opportunity Commission notified Plaintiff that she must name the proper

defendant in any federal action and that failure to do so could result in

dismissal of the action. (Defs.’ Mot. Ex. 3.) Because Plaintiff has not

named the proper defendant to this action, the court will grant Defendants’

unopposed motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. See Mulhall, 287

F.3d at 550. 

(7/22/2009 Order.) Plaintiff does not suggest that this reasoning is in error: “Plaintiff

concedes that she must meet the clear statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e16(c), that being that the proper party in interest is John E. Potter, Postmaster General .

. . .” (Pl.’s Mot. Br. 3.) Plaintiff therefore admits that the court’s opinion contained no

palpable defect on this point. 

Instead, Plaintiff intimates that her pro se status excuses her mistake and that

the court should therefore grant her motion for reconsideration and grant her leave to

amend her complaint. Plaintiff also suggests that naming the wrong defendant should

be excused because the materials attached to the complaint extensively referred to the

Postmaster General. But Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that pro se litigants may

be excused from meeting the statutory requirements of a particular cause of action. 

Further, the statutory requirements are clear that the required defendant is the

Postmaster General, and Plaintiff cites no authority suggesting that this requirement is

met by referring to, rather than naming, the correct defendant in a complaint. 

Plaintiff also asks the court for permission to amend her complaint and argues

that the amendment should relate back to the date of the original complaint. Plaintiff did

not move to amend her complaint before the court ruled on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. Plaintiff did not even file a response to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff gives no

reason, other than her pro se status, and cites no law excusing her failure to file a

response brief or excusing her failure to submit a motion to amend her complaint. Since

allowing amendment in this case is not justified, the court need not decide whether the

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 19 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 244
1

 The court expresses no opinion on Plaintiff’s chances of success, procedurally

or on the merits, if she chooses to initiate a second case by filing a complaint against

parties not named as defendants in this case.

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-10975.LENTON.DenyReconsideration.wpd

4

requirements of back-relation, e.g., actual notice, are met. In her brief supporting this

motion, Plaintiff responds to all of the arguments raised by Defendants in their motion to

dismiss, including those not relied upon by the court in granting dismissal. Effectively,

Plaintiff is attempting to use Local Rule 7.1(g) and a post-judgment motion to amend a

complaint as an opportunity to file an untimely response brief after the case has been

dismissed. Regardless of the appropriateness of this technique, Plaintiff has not shown

any defect in the court’s conclusion that her case should have been dismissed because

it named the wrong defendant. Quite simply, Plaintiff sued parties she had no right to

sue, and her case was dismissed appropriately.1

 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration” [Dkt. # 11] is

DENIED. 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 15, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 15, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10975-RHC-VMM Doc # 19 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 245