Hymes Fecht, Ursula v. Rollins, Brooke et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
URSULA C. HYMES FECHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROOKE LESLIE ROLLINS,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, and
USDA FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-878-jdp
Ursula C. Hymes Fecht brings this lawsuit against the United States Department of
Agriculture, the secretary of that department, and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Service. Although Hymes Fecht has paid the entire filing fee, this court retains the inherent
authority to screen all complaints to ensure that they state a claim for which relief may be
afforded and are not frivolous. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). I conclude
that Hymes Fecht’s complaint doesn’t state a claim for relief, but I will give her a chance to file
an amended complaint better explaining her claims.
ANALYSIS
Hymes Fecht’s allegations are extremely short and discuss only the procedural history
of a complaint that she brought to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission against the USDA. I infer that she believes that she was discriminated against in
her employment there. But she doesn’t explain anything about how she was discriminated
against.
Case: 3:25-cv-00878-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
As a general rule, to state a claim for employment discrimination, a “plaintiff need only
identify the type of discrimination, when it occurred, and by whom.” Clark v. Law Off. of Terrence
Kennedy, Jr., 709 F. App’x 826, 829 (7th Cir. 2017). But “the plaintiff must give enough details
about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.” See Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010). Conclusory and speculative allegations don’t
plausibly suggest discrimination based on a protected class. See Miao v. United Airlines, Inc.,
164 F.4th 622, 625–26 (7th Cir. 2026). Stating a plausible claim for relief “demands more
than 	an 	unadorned, 	the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 	accusation.” 	Ashcroft 	v. 	Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Hymes Fecht’s allegations aren’t enough to state any claim for relief. But because she
appears without counsel, I will not dismiss the case outright. See Felton v. City of Chicago,
827 F.3d 	632, 	636 	(7th 	Cir. 	2016) 	(“when 	a 	plaintiff—especially 	[an 	unrepresented]
plaintiff—fails to state a claim in his first complaint, he should ordinarily be given a chance to
amend.”). Instead, I will give her a chance to file an amended complaint better explaining her
claims. In drafting her amended complaint, Hymes Fecht should be sure to take care to allege
what her employer’s employees did or failed to do to violate her rights, and why she believes
that their actions were discriminatory.
If Hymes Fecht fails to submit an amended complaint by the deadline set below, I will
dismiss the entire case. See Paul v. Marberry, 658 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2011).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED.
Case: 3:25-cv-00878-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	Plaintiff may have until April 20, 2026, to submit an amended complaint.
Entered March 30, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00878-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3