Amonoo, Kwesi v. SCAN PAC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KWESI B. AMONOO,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCAN PAC, MICHELLE, SEAN,
MR. HILL, and JILL LAFIERI,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-58-wmc
Plaintiff Kwesi Amonoo, who is representing himself, has filed a lawsuit alleging that
his employer, SCAN PAC, required him to work on machinery after he was injured and despite
his doctors providing work restrictions for him. As a result, he was repeatedly reinjured to the
point that he had to quit his job. Amonoo contends that his employer and supervisors were
negligent, subjected him to an unsafe working environment, and failed to accommodate his
injuries. Because Amonoo is proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court must screen
his complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After reviewing Amonoo’s complaint,
the court cannot determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over Amonoo’s claim.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Qin v. Deslongchamps, 31 F.4th 576,
582 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). Because jurisdiction is limited, federal courts “have an
independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
absence of a challenge from any party.” Word Seed Church v. Village of Hazel Crest, 111 F.4th
814, 819 (7th Cir. 2024) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). “If
Case: 3:25-cv-00058-wmc Document #: 5 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 1 of 4

2
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff’s allegations implicate two potential federal statutes. First, he alleges that his
employer violated the safety requirements of the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (“OSHA”). However, plaintiff cannot sue to enforce OSHA standards because
there is no private right of action under OSHA. See Basden v. AG Growth Int'l, Inc., No. 12-CV-
41-JPG-PMF, 2012 WL 3610112, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012) (“Accordingly, OSHA does
not create a private right of action, and [plaintiff] has no federal cause of action.”); Adami v.
Green Giant Div., a Div. of Pillsbury Co., 849 F. Supp. 615, 616 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (“OSHA is a
purely regulatory provision with no private remedial action.”)
Second, plaintiff alleges that his employer failed to accommodate his injury by
permitting him to work on light duty. Although plaintiff’s complaint does not mention the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), his allegations implicate the ADA, which prohibits
employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of disability. See 42 U.S.C. §
12112(a). To satisfy the pleading requirements for an ADA claim, a plaintiff to allege that:
(1) he is disabled; (2) he is qualified to perform the essential function of the job either with or
without reasonable accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because
of her disability. Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 1170, 1172 (7th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff’s
allegations that his employer did not offer him an accommodation for light duty after he was
injured at work might be enough to state an ADA claim.
However, before bringing an ADA claim, a plaintiff must first exhaust his administrative
remedies by filing charges with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter. Riley v. City of
Kokomo, 909 F.3d 182, 189 (7th Cir. 2018). A “complaint may be deficient and subject to
Case: 3:25-cv-00058-wmc Document #: 5 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 2 of 4

3
dismissal if the plaintiff lacks a right-to-sue letter.” Worth v. Tyer, 276 F.3d 249, 259 (7th Cir.
2001); see also Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc., 140 F.4th 385, 390 (7th Cir. 2025) (affirming
dismissal of Title VII discrimination claim because plaintiffs failed to allege that they received
a right to sue letter before dismissal of the case). Here, plaintiff makes no mention of the ADA
nor any right to sue letter from the EEOC. Instead, his complaint only mentions the Wisconsin
Fair Employment Act (“WFEA”). Because plaintiff does not indicate that he intends to sue
under the ADA or that he exhausted his administrative remedies under the ADA, the court will
decline to let him proceed with an ADA claim.
This leaves only plaintiff’s claims that arise under state law, including his WFEA and
negligence claims. But in the absence of related federal claims, this court has jurisdiction over
state law claims only if diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Under that statute,
jurisdiction exists if (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and (2) the parties are of
diverse citizenship, meaning that no plaintiff may be from the same state as any defendant.
Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 803 (7th Cir. 2009). Unless a
complaint alleges complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and an amount in
controversy exceeding $75,000, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Here,
plaintiff alleges that he and defendants all live in Wisconsin. Therefore, diversity jurisdiction
is not present. Plaintiff may be able to proceed with his state law claims in a state court, but
not in federal court.
Because plaintiff’s complaint does not include clear allegations stating a federal claim
or establishing subject matter jurisdiction, the court will dismiss the case without prejudice.
But the court will give plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint that establishes
Case: 3:25-cv-00058-wmc Document #: 5 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 3 of 4

4
subject matter jurisdiction. If he files an amended complaint by the date below, the court will
screen the complaint under § 1915(e).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
2) Plaintiff may have until April 27, 2026, to file an amended complaint that
establishes subject matter jurisdiction either based on a claim arising under federal
law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint by that deadline will result in the
court dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Entered March 31, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00058-wmc Document #: 5 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 4 of 4