UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

YEVONNE AGBUKE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-cv-13539

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER INTERPRETING PLAINTIFF’S 9/22/09 “RESPONSE” AS A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING THE MOTION

On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff Yevonne Agbuke filed a pro se complaint against

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”). Plaintiff alleged that she

filed a claim with the EEOC arising from her allegedly discriminatory termination from

employment at St. Mary Hospital, but that her claim was halted by EEOC Investigator

Cynthia Baker. (Compl. at 2-3.) Plaintiff attempted to base her federal cause of action

on Ms. Baker’s allegedly defective investigation into her EEOC claim. 

On review of the complaint, this court dismissed the complaint on September 16,

2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under § 1915, this court is required to

screen and to dismiss complaints filed in forma pauperis that are frivolous, fail to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114

F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). In its September 16, 2009 order, the court held that

Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action against the EEOC for its alleged failure to

2:09-cv-13539-RHC-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 16
2

fully investigate a claim or its purported improper treatment of a Title VII claim. (9/16/09

Order at 3.) The Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that “Title VII does not provide either an

express or implied cause of action against the EEOC to challenge its investigation and

processing of a charge.” Haddad v. E.E.O.C., 111 F. App’x 413, 414-15 (6th Cir. 2004)

(quoting McCottrell v. EEOC, 726 F.2d 350, 351 (7th Cir. 1984) and citing Smith v.

Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). The court therefore summarily dismissed

Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

On September 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “In Answer to

Dismissal of Compliant [sic],” which the clerk’s office docketed as a “Response to Order

Dismissing Case.” Interpreting Plaintiff’s pro se document liberally, Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the court will construe the document as a motion for

reconsideration. 

Motions for reconsideration may be granted when the moving party shows (1) a

“palpable defect,” (2) by which the court and the parties were misled, and (3) the

correction of which will result in a different disposition of the case. E.D. Mich. L.R.

7.1(g)(3). A “palpable defect” is a “defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,

manifest or plain.” Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F. Supp. 2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich.

2004). 

Plaintiff here has failed to meet this standard. She appears to argue the merits of

her underlying discrimination claims against St. Mary Hospital, without explaining how,

even if her discrimination claims against the hospital have merit, she can sustain a claim

against the EEOC. The Sixth Circuit is clear that a plaintiff may not sue the EEOC for

2:09-cv-13539-RHC-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 17
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-13539.AGBUKE.Reconsideration.chd.wpd

3

improper investigation or dismissal of an EEOC claim. Haddad, 111 F. App’x at 414-15.

Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court has

been misled. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s September 22, 2009 “Response to Order

Dismissing Case” [Dkt. # 4] is INTERPRETED as a motion for reconsideration and

DENIED. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 16, 2009

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

on this date, October 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13539-RHC-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 18