39 F.4th 408
7th Cir.2022Background
- FedEx Ground contracted with Fairway Delivery (co-owned by Brandi Johnson) to deliver packages; FedEx assigned the contract to another company in Sept. 2016.
- Johnson (African‑American and Native‑American) alleged racial discrimination and breach of contract under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after the assignment/termination.
- Procedural history: four complaints across three cases — initial pro se suit dismissed because a nonlawyer cannot represent a corporation; second suit (with counsel) voluntarily dismissed and claims folded into arbitration (plaintiff disputes whether she settled); third pro se suit dismissed for failure to state a § 1981 claim but Johnson was given 14 days to amend with explicit warnings about alleging an assignment‑denial without proof.
- Johnson filed a fourth (amended) complaint naming DJM Logistics (a corporation she claimed she would control) alleging FedEx refused to allow assignment to DJM; the district court dismissed this amended complaint with prejudice for failing Rule 8(a), violating the prior order, improperly substituting a corporation represented pro se, and as time‑barred.
- The district court also ordered Johnson to show cause re: sanctions; the court found her conduct merited admonition and noted sanctions (including attorneys’ fees) could have been appropriate.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed: (1) the amended complaint failed to state a § 1981 claim (no plausible showing DJM was a party to the contract or Johnson’s role at the relevant time), (2) dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion, and (3) the court’s criticisms of Johnson’s pro se conduct were justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint plausibly stated a § 1981 claim (party/contractual right) | Johnson/DJM: DJM was to be majority‑owned by Johnson and was denied assignment, so § 1981 claim stated | FedEx: Complaint lacks facts showing DJM (or Johnson in corporate capacity) was party to or had rights under the contract | Court: Dismissed — complaint failed Rule 8; plaintiff did not identify DJM’s status or show it had contractual rights for § 1981 relief |
| Whether plaintiff complied with court’s leave to amend (assignment‑denial theory) | Johnson: The amended pleading alleged assignment denial to DJM, satisfying the court’s grant to plead an assignment‑denial theory | FedEx: The district court had allowed amendment to plead denial of assignment to Johnson individually; amended pleading deviated from the permitted theory and lacked required proof | Court: Dismissed — Johnson failed to comply with the September 27 order and raised different facts than previously stated |
| Whether the § 1981 claim was time‑barred | DJM: Claimed a six‑year limitations period (or otherwise timely) | FedEx: § 1981 claims are subject to a four‑year limitations period; the alleged discriminatory act occurred in 2016, so suit filed in 2021 is untimely | Court: Dismissed — § 1981 claims governed by a four‑year statute of limitations; claim was untimely |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice (and no further leave) abused discretion given pro se status and time to retain counsel | Johnson: Was pro se and lacked time/ability to retain counsel; should have been granted more time or another chance to amend | FedEx: Plaintiff had repeated opportunities, knew corporate‑representation rules, failed to request more time, and filed inconsistent and procedurally improper pleadings | Court: Affirmed dismissal with prejudice — district court reasonably explained denial of further amendment; plaintiff failed to request additional relief and had prior warnings |
Key Cases Cited
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) (plaintiff must be a real party to a contract to state a § 1981 claim)
- Riley v. Elkhart Cmty. Sch., 829 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2016) (§ 1981 claims are governed by a four‑year statute of limitations)
- Peterson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 986 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Cath. Educ., Inc., 996 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2021) (review for abuse of discretion when dismissal with prejudice is contested)
- Wagner v. Teva Pharms. USA, 840 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court need not grant sua sponte amendments when plaintiff does not request one)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (pro se litigants are afforded latitude but not license to ignore court orders)