Leftwich v. Mulligun Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
DOMINIQUE LACHELLE LEFTWICH,
Plaintiff,
– against –
MULLIGAN SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
25-CV-4543 (AMD) (TAM)
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On August 14, 2025, the pro se plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, her
former employer, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on military status. (ECF No. 1.)1
On October 6, 2025, the Court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 4.)
Although the plaintiff did not give a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court liberally
construed her complaint to assert a claim pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301, et seq. (“USERRA”). The plaintiff cited
“some military service,” (ECF No. 1 at 5), as her qualification for the security job, but alleged
only that her manager said that he “favors NYPD” (id.); she did not allege that the defendant was
motivated by discriminatory animus toward her military status. Accordingly, the Court
concluded that the plaintiff did not allege facts that plausibly connected her military status to any
adverse employment. In an abundance of caution and in light of the plaintiff’s pro se status, the
Court granted her leave to amend.
1 The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case, which are detailed in its October 6, 2025
Order. (See ECF No. 4.)
Case 1:25-cv-04543-AMD-TAM Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On November 5, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) She
attached several documents as “evidence,” including employee schedules and communications
with supervisors, with handwritten notes explaining why the documents are relevant to her claim.
However, the plaintiff did not cure the deficiencies the Court identified when it dismissed the
first complaint; the plaintiff still does not allege facts that plausibly connect her military status to
any adverse employment. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case, mail a copy of this
Memorandum and Order to the plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 18, 2025
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Case 1:25-cv-04543-AMD-TAM Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>