Pugh v. B Seed Environmental Affairs et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAMIEN D. PUGH,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 25-cv-13055
v. 	Honorable Linda V. Parker
B SEED ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS and
LINBERGER GOGGAN BLAIR SIMPSON LLP,
Defendants.
________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants.
(ECF No. 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges federal subject matter jurisdiction
based on diversity. (See id. at PageID.3 § II.) On September 30, he filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 5.) On October 15,
this Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP application but ordered him to show cause as to
why the lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as
the Complaint failed to reflect diversity of citizenship and that the amount in
controversy exceeded $75,000. (ECF. No. 6.)
Plaintiff timely responded to the show cause order. (ECF No. 7.) While
Plaintiff’s response does not resolve all of the Court’s concerns regarding diversity
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 3

jurisdiction, it does reflect that he is alleging a violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which would confer federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court therefore vacated the show cause
order. Nevertheless, the Court is requiring Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
because his current pleading does not clearly plead a claim under the FDCPA.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction
depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. A complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “state[s] a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to
reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Plaintiff does state in his Complaint that, after receiving blight tickets when
the debris from his property was not collected pursuant to Mayor Duggan’s
citywide free blight removal process, his “personal information was then
forwarded to a third party bill collector.” (See ECF No. 1 at PageID.5.) However,
Plaintiff never mentions the FDCPA, does not identify this third party bill collector
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 3

as Defendant Linberger Goggan Blair Sampson, LLP, and does not plainly allege
what actions that debt collector took in violation of the FDCPA. Therefore, his
current pleading fails to allege a viable FDCPA claim against a named party.
Therefore, within twenty-one (21) days of this Opinion and Order, Plaintiff
shall file an amended complaint in compliance with Rule 8 or this action will be
dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is again reminded of the assistance available
through the University of Detroit Mercy Law School Federal Pro Se Legal
Assistance Clinic, as noted in the show cause order.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 20, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 20, 2025, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 3