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,
,
Defendant.
________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On September 25, 2025, Plaintiff Damien Pugh, who has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed this lawsuit against B. Seed
Environmental Affairs (“B. Seed”) and Linberger Goggan Blair Simpson LLP
(“LGBS”). (ECF Nos. 1, 6.) In the Complaint, Pugh alleged federal subject matter
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See id. at
PageID.3 § II.) Because Pugh seemed to claim less than $75,000 in damages and
failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the citizenship of LGBS, the Court
issued an order on October 15, requiring Pugh to show cause as to why the lawsuit
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)
Pugh timely responded to the show cause order on October 16. (ECF No. 7.)
While his response did not resolve all of the Court’s concerns regarding diversity
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 4

jurisdiction, it did suggest that Pugh was alleging a violation of the federal 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, because the original complaint did not clearly plead a claim
under the FDCPA, including specifying whether either of the named parties was
the alleged debt collector, the Court ordered Pugh to file an amended complaint by
November 10. (ECF No. 9.)
Pugh filed an Amended Complaint on October 22. (ECF No. 10.) In this
pleading, Pugh no longer names LGBS as a defendant. He does not mention the
FDCPA. Nor does he suggest that the only defendant now named, B Seed, had
anything to do with the blight tickets for which he claims the attempted collection
was done “under false pretences [sic].” (Id. at PageID.37 § III.) While the
Amended Complaint suggests that Pugh’s citizenship is diverse from B Seed’s
citizenship, and Pugh claims damages exceeding $75,000, the pleading fails to
satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When a complaint is filed IFP, the district court must conduct a summary
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d at 604-05 (6th Cir. 1997). Upon review, the court must dismiss the action if it
determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 4

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). While a reviewing court
must liberally construe pro se filings, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007), the Court finds Pugh’s Amended Complaint subject to dismissal under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
Rule 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. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the
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).
The Court is unable to discern from Pugh’s Amended Complaint—even
when aided by the initial pleading and response to the show cause order—what his
claim is (or claims are) against B. Seed, much less whether a viable claim is
alleged. The only conduct described in the Amended Complaint that appears to
relate to this entity is the failure to notice accumulated trash and blight on Pugh’s
two properties. Pugh may be claiming that B. Seed was responsible for picking up
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 4

the trash and blight pursuant to Mayor Duggan’s “citywide free blight removal”
program; however, it is unclear how B. Seed is liable to Pugh. Further, it does not
appear that there is a sufficient connection between B. Seed’s conduct and the
alleged injuries for which Pugh is seeking damages here—which seem to be
“possible foreclosure” and “incorrect billing.” (See ECF No. 10 at PageID.37-38.)
For these reasons, the Court SUMMARILY DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Pugh’s Second Amended Complaint and this action is CLOSED.
This does not preclude Pugh from refiling the action and proceeding if he is able to
cure the deficiencies in his pleading. Toward that endeavor, the Court informs
Pugh again of the resources available to pro se litigants in the courthouse. See at
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Pro_Se_Clinic_2019.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 24, 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 24, 2025, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-13055-LVP-EAS ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 4 of 4