UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

THOANCHELLE TAYLOR-BARGEN, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-12245

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

WERNER ENTERPRISES, 

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,

in the City of Detroit, State of Michigan, on July 13, 2009

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint [dkt 1]. Plaintiff filed her complaint

in letter format describing a series of unfortunate events that befell her in conjunction with her

employment by Defendant as a semi-truck operator. Upon careful review of Plaintiff’s complaint,

however, the Court is unable to discern the source of its subject-matter jurisdiction or the nature of

the relief Plaintiff seeks. For the following reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with

leave to amend. 

II. ANALYSIS

A pleading must contain: 

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new jurisdictional support; 

(2) a short and plaint statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief; and

2:09-cv-12245-LPZ-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 13
2

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Plaintiff’s compliant fails to meet these requirements. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s

complaint does not supply the Court with a source of federal jurisdiction. The gravamen of

Plaintiff’s complaint involves some type of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation by

Defendant, but Plaintiff cites no law or statute, either federal or state, on which to base her

allegations. See Curto v. Bender, No. 04-cv-24S, 2005 WL 724156, at *12 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28,

2005) (“A complaint that does not identify the basis upon which purported discrimination occurred

does not give a defendant fair notice of what the claim is or on what grounds it rests, and therefore

fails to meet even the minimal pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).”). 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s only “demand” for relief appears in the following statement: 

I look forward to working with or should I say finding a support

system that can identify with the issues that are very important to me,

and I ask that this be taken very seriously . . . . Look forward to

hearing from someone soon with positive feedback in my favor for

a change . . . . 

Pl.’s Compl. at p.10. The Court cannot determine from this statement what relief it could afford

Plaintiff even if she had properly established subject-matter jurisdiction and pleaded a viable

discrimination claim. 

Further, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) states in pertinent part that “[a] party must state its claims or

defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Plaintiff’s letter-format complaint does not allow Defendant to ascertain the number or nature of the

allegations against it, and Plaintiff’s lack of numbered paragraphs and organization would create

great difficulties if Defendant were to attempt to draft a responsive pleading. 

2:09-cv-12245-LPZ-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 14
3

The Court recognizes that when a plaintiff proceeds pro se, as is the case here, the Court

must construe that plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and that such pleadings are held to a lesser standard

than those drafted by a licensed attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Jourdan

v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court, however, will not re-write a deficient

complaint or otherwise serve as counsel for that plaintiff. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of

Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiff’s complaint as filed does not provide “‘a short and plain statement of the claim’”

in order to “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests[.]’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Put differently, Plaintiff’s complaint has not “‘nudged [her] claims’ of

invidious discrimination ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S.

___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1951 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Therefore, the Court will

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. See, e.g., Schied v. Daughtrey, No. 08-14944,

2008 WL 5422680, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2008) (dismissing complaint for failure to comply

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that establishes the Court’s jurisdiction and complies with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 within 30 days of the entry of this order. 

2:09-cv-12245-LPZ-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 15
4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

Date: July 13, 2009 LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-12245-LPZ-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 07/13/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 16