Rayford Jr. v. Community Health Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KIBWE RAYFORD, JR., CASE NO. 3:25 CV 381

Plaintiff,

v. JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant. AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

This Complaint is one of many in a long line of employment discrimination cases with

which pro se Plaintiff Kibwe Rayford, Jr. has flooded the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

and, in turn, this Federal Court upon removal by the Defendants. See Rayford, Jr. v. Amazon.com

Services, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-02195-JGC (N.D. Ohio) (removed Dec. 17, 2024); Rayford, Jr. v. Kyle

Media, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00269-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 12, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v.

Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00294-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 14,

2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00326-JJH (N.D. Ohio)

(removed Feb. 18, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Sigma Technologies, Ltd., No. 3:25-cv-00329-JJH (N.D.

Ohio) (removed Feb. 18, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc., No. 3:25-

cv-00332-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 18, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. CCFI Companies, LLC, No.

3:25-cv-00338-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 19, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut

Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-00345-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 20, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v.

Whiteford Kenworth, No. 3:25-cv-00347-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 20, 2025); Rayford, Jr.

v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3:25-cv-00348-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 20, 2025); Rayford,

21, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Board of Lucas County Commissioners, No. 3:25-cv-00351-JRK (N.D.

Ohio) (removed Feb. 21, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Hospital Service Associates, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-

00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 24, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Hirzel Canning Company, 3:25-

cv-00365-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 24, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Impact Employment

Solutions, 3:25-cv-00366-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 24, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Concord

Care Center of Toledo, No. 3:25-cv-00372-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 25, 2025); Rayford,

Jr. v. Northwest Ohio Realtors, No. 3:25-cv-00380-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb. 26, 2025);

Rayford, Jr. v. Community Health Services, No. 3:25-cv-00381-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb.

26, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Libbey Glass LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00382-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (removed Feb.

26, 2025); Rayford, Jr. v. Fresh Products, LLC, 3:25-cv-00432-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (removed Mar.

4, 2025).

BACKGROUND

In each of the removed actions, Plaintiff utilizes the same self-styled form Complaint,

changing only the name of the defendant and the position for which he applied. In all other

respects, the form is the same in each case. The form Complaints contain no facts specific to their

respective case and simply list causes of action as Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 42112, and Title XV the Equal Employment Opportunity

Act (“EEOA”) 47 U.S.C. §554. The form states only that he applied for a position and contains

spaces for him to write in the job for which he applied, the date he applied, and the date on which

the application was denied. The form then states that although he “surpass [sic]or meets the

qualifications, … [he] was not selected for Interview or considered for hiring practices.” (Doc. 1-

3, at 2). The form Complaint states:

The discriminatory conduct of which Plaintiff complain [sic] in this action includes:

fff. Failure to Hire

ggg. Unequal terms and conditions of employment

hhh. Retaliation

Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on:

iii. Race

jjj. Color

kkk. Gender

lll. National Origin

mmm. Disability

nnn. Education

Id. The form Complaint seeks $ 15,000.00 in damages. Id. at 3.

On the form Complaint in this case, Plaintiff named Community Health Services as a

defendant. He did not indicate for which position he applied or when he applied. See id. at 2. The

spaces on the self-styled form for this information are left blank. See id. at 2-3. The name of the

defendant is the only fact in the Complaint specific to this case. The rest of the form reads as stated

above.

On March 4, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 4). Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against it as required by Title VII and the

ADA. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege any claim against

Community Health Services.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When deciding a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(6), the function of the

Court is to test the legal sufficiency of the Complaint. See Mayer v. Mulod, 988 F.2d 635, 638 (6th

Cir. 1993). The Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-678 (2009) clarified the law regarding what the Plaintiff must

plead in order to survive a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

When determining whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted,

the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all factual

allegations as true, and determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The plaintiff's obligation to provide

the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. Although a complaint need not contain

detailed factual allegations, its “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.” Id. The

Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan

v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

The Court in Iqbal further explains the “plausibility” requirement, stating that “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678. Furthermore, “the plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks

for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully.” Id. This determination is a

“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and

common sense.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s prolific filing of frivolous form Complaints is patently vexatious. Plaintiff filed

48 cases in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas in late January 2025, of which over 20 have

been removed to this federal court to date. Thirty of those cases were filed on the same day, January

17, 2025, and eighteen of them were filed five days later, on January 23, 2025. Each day, this

Court receives more cases using the same form Complaint. Plaintiff has not put forth a sincere

effort to draft a pleading that contains facts specific to each case or an explanation of why he

believes he is entitled to relief from any specific defendant under the various statutes identified.

The Complaints do not appear to seek real relief from the defendants. At best, this conduct could

be construed as a misguided attempt to supplement his income through frivolous litigation, hoping

one of these cases will produce a settlement or a judgment in his favor. Viewed less generously, it

could be construed as harassment of the defendants and courts. Neither is a proper use of this

Court’s time and resources.

The Court is aware that, at this stage, Plaintiff is not required to plead his discrimination

claims with heightened specificity. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 513-14 (2002).

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must still provide “enough facts to state

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S.

at 677-78 (“[A] complaint [will not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further

factual enhancement.’”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The Sixth Circuit clarified the scope

of Twombly and Iqbal, noting that “even though a Complaint need not contain detailed factual

allegations, its ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true.’” New Albany Tractor v.

Lousiville Tractor, 650 F.3d 1046, 1051 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)

(alteration in original).

Plaintiff’s Complaint never rises above the speculative level. He provides no facts specific

to this case, and the Court is left to guess his race, color, gender, national origin, and disability;

what the actual qualifications for the (unidentified) position were; whether Plaintiff truly met all

of those qualifications; and what facts, if any, support his assertion that a decision was made not

to hire him and that such decision was based on prohibited criteria.1 The form Complaint merely

1. Indeed, the form Complaint also has a line for the date on which Plaintiff was denied

employment; it is left blank. See Doc. 1-3, at 3.

states that he applied for a job and ultimately was not offered employment. Simply applying for a

job, even if fully qualified, does not guarantee employment, and failure to offer an employment

interview, alone, is not a violation of federal law. Plaintiff’s bare bones form Complaint, devoid

of factual allegations and composed entirely of legal conclusions, is not sufficient to meet even the

minimum basic pleading requirements in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a complaint must

provide “a short and plain statement of the claim” made by “simple, concise, and direct”

allegations); see also Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding

legal conclusions alone are not sufficient to present a valid claim, and court is not required to

accept “unwarranted factual inferences”). Plaintiff’s repeated filings of the same form Complaint

lacking any factual basis is frivolous. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave/Notice of Prima Facie/Motion for

Judgment (Docs. 5, 5-1, 5-2). This Motion is also a self-styled form that does not contain any facts

specific to this or any other case. It is composed entirely of excerpts from statutes and case

citations. He adds:

The Plaintiff is overqualified for the position, should have been interviewed and

extended a job offer. The fact of the Plaintiff being denied an interview and a job

offer is discrimination. ADA set clear standards regarding being qualified and not

being a considered candidate.

(Doc. 5-1, at 5). Plaintiff simply reworded the form Complaint without adding the crucial

information needed to state a claim against this particular defendant. The Motion is frivolous and

is denied.

Furthermore, this Court enjoined Plaintiff from filing new actions in this Court without

leave of Court due to Plaintiff’s vexatious and frivolous actions. See Rayford, Jr. v. Kyle Media,

Inc, No. 3:25-cv-00269-JRK (N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2025) (Doc. 7). And Judge James G. Carr

enjoined Plaintiff from filing additional Motions in his case due to Plaintiff’s excessive filings.

See Rayford, Jr. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-02195 (N.D. Ohio). Undeterred by

the Court’s warnings against filing frivolous and harassing bulk litigation, however, Plaintiff

continued to engage in vexatious behavior by filing this form Motion and/or a similar form Motion

in at least twelve cases in this Court. See Rayford, Jr. v. Kyle Media, Inc, No. 3:25-cv-00269-JRK

(N.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2025)(Doc. No. 6); Rayford Jr. v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., No.

3:25-cv-00294-JRK (N.D. Ohio removed Feb. 14, 2025)(Doc. No. 7); Rayford, Jr. v. Panda

Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00326-JJH (N.D. Ohio removed Feb. 18, 2025)(Doc. No.

10); Rayford, Jr. v. CCFI Companies, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00338-JJH (N.D. Ohio removed Feb. 19,

2025) (Docs. 4, 7); Rayford Jr. v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-00345-JRK

(N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 4); Rayford, Jr. v. Whiteford Kenworth, No. 3:25-cv-00347-JJH (N.D. Ohio)

(Docs. 6, 8); Rayford, Jr. v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3:25-cv-00348-JJH (N.D. Ohio) (Docs. 4,

6); Rayford Jr. v. Hospital Service Associates, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio removed

Feb. 24, 2025)(Doc. No. 5); Rayford, Jr. v. Hirzel Canning Company, 3:25-cv-00365-JRK (N.D.

Ohio) (Doc. 6); Rayford Jr. v. Impact Employment Solutions, 3:25-cv-00366-JRK (N.D. Ohio)

(Doc. 6); Rayford Jr. v. Concord Care Center of Toledo, No. 3:25-cv-00372-JJH (N.D. Ohio)

(Doc. 3); Rayford, Jr. v. Libbey Glass LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00382-JRK (N.D. Ohio) (Doc. 4). None

of these Motions contain any case specific information. In light of Plaintiff’s behavior in this and

other cases in this federal court and in state court, Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new Motions

or documents in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) be, and the same hereby is,

GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 5) be, and the same hereby is,

DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new Motions or

documents in this case; and the Court

FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this

decision could not be taken in good faith.

s/ James R. Knepp II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 10, 2025