Simon v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SANDRA GAYLE SIMON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-04472
§
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT §
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, §
Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this case on
September 11, 2025 by filing a form Complaint for a Civil Case against the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). ECF 1. The EEOC
filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 1, 2026 seeking dismissal pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and alternatively pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. ECF 14. On June 1, 2026, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF 16, as corrected by ECF 20) and
deemed her Amended Complaint to be her operative pleading. ECF 22.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names only Aviva Metals, Inc. as Defendant.
ECF 16-1. The Amended Complaint asserts a claim against Avivi Metal for race
discrimination in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1981. Id. The Amended Complaint
contains no allegations of wrongdoing by the EEOC. Id. The Amended Complaint
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04472 Document 23 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

supersedes the original Complaint in its entirety. King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346
(5th Cir. 1994) (holding “[a]n amended complaint supersedes the original complaint
and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to
and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Amended Pleading effectively dismisses the EEOC as a defendant in this case.
In addition, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims
against the EEOC related to its handling of her EEOC charge against her employer,
Aviva Metals. See Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301 F.3d 227, 232 (5th Cir. 2002), holding
that “Title VII does not confer on a charging party a right of action against the
EEOC.). An agency of the United States cannot be sued unless Congress has
expressly waived sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538,
(1980) (holding “it is elementary” that the United States is immune from suit unless
it consents to sued). Congress has not waived sovereign immunity to allow for suits
such as this one against the EEOC. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
is without prejudice. Ruiz v. Brennan, 851 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2017).
For the above reasons, the Court recommends the EEOC’s Motion to Dismiss
(14) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against the EEOC be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case 4:25-cv-04472 Document 23 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on June 01, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-04472 Document 23 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3