GOVAN v. PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH GOVAN, 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-CV-5442
:
CHANIQUA A. RUE, et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM
MCHUGH, J. 	JANUARY 8, 2026
In a prior Memorandum and Order, the Court granted Plaintiff Kenneth Govan leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the Complaint he filed against the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) and its employees because he failed to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Govan v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Comm’n, No. 25-5442, 2025 WL
3036502 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2025) (“the October Memorandum”). Mr. Govan was permitted an
opportunity to file an amended complaint. Govan returned with an Amended Complaint on
November 26, 2025. (ECF No. 9.) On December 10, 2025, he filed a Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”), which is the governing pleading,1 naming the following PHRC employees:
Chaniqua A. Rue, identified in the SAC as a Human Relations Representative; Meredith A.
Millard, Esquire, identified as Chief Counsel; Stephanie M. Chapman, identified as Assistant
Chief Counsel; and Morgan Gale Williams. (See SAC (ECF No. 10) at 3.) For the following
reasons, the SAC will be dismissed with prejudice.
1 See Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 82 (3d Cir. 2019) (explaining that “an amended
pleading supersedes the original pleading,” meaning “the most recently filed amended complaint
becomes the operative pleading”); see also Argentina v. Gillette, 778 F. App’x 173, 175 n.3 (3d
Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“[L]iberal construction of a pro se amended complaint does not mean
accumulating allegations from superseded pleadings.”).
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 8

2
I. 	PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS2
Mr. Govan’s original Complaint consisted of the form available to pro se litigants to file
a civil case alleging negligence with more than one hundred pages of exhibits, including copies
of decisions from the PHRC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
Pennsylvania state court filings, email correspondence, and medical and financial information.
(Compl. (ECF No. 1), Exhibits (ECF No. 2).) Govan subsequently filed an additional twenty-six
pages, consisting of pleadings and correspondence with the PHRC. (ECF No. 6.)
The allegations in Govan’s original Complaint were disjointed and impossible to
decipher. Govan asserted that on May 20, 2022 in Philadelphia, the Executive Director for the
PHRC issued a “Finding of No Probable Cause . . . without any VERIFICATION on the
document from any Amazon Representative authentication.” (Compl. at 4.) He listed a PHRC
case number, an EEOC case number, mentioned a September 14, 2023 Opinion from the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, quoted from a February 1, 2023 Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (“OSHA”) national news release, and directed the Court to refer to
attached exhibits. (Id.) Govan alleged mental and emotional stress, “WES Mental Health,” and
referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming that he was diagnosed in May 2021
with “MUSCULOSKELETAL.” (Id.) Govan did not state what damages or relief he sought
from the Court, nor did he set forth any facts explaining why he was entitled to relief.
In the October Memorandum, the Court determined that despite the difficulty in
understanding the exact nature of Govan’s claims, his claims against the PHRC were not legally
plausible because the PHRC, as an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, shares in the
2 Unless otherwise indicated, the factual allegations set forth in this Memorandum are taken from
Govan’s SAC. (ECF No. 10). The Court adopts the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF
docketing system. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors are cleaned up where necessary.
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity and is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983.
October Memorandum, 2025 WL 3036502, at *5. With respect to Govan’s remaining claims
against the individually named Defendants, the Court concluded that he failed to allege their
personal involvement in any constitutional injury. Id. (citing Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d
1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that the personal involvement of each defendant in the
alleged constitutional violation is a required element, and a plaintiff must allege how each
defendant was involved in the events and occurrences giving rise to the claims)). Additionally,
the Court determined that Govan’s Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 because he did not
state a demand for relief or include facts to support a claim of relief. Id. Finally, while the Court
reviewed the attachments to Govan’s Complaint, he was informed that he could not state a claim
by relying solely on exhibits, absent factual allegations in the Complaint that explain the basis
for his legal claims. Id. at *6. The Court dismissed Govan’s claims against the PHRC with
prejudice, and the remainder of his Complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim for relief and for failure to comply with Rule 8. Id.
In the SAC, consisting of the Court’s form and attachments, Govan indicates that the
basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is both federal question and diversity of citizenship.3 (SAC at
3.) The claims in the SAC once again are vague and disjointed. Govan avers that he visited a
doctor on May 11, 2021 for musculoskeletal issues and to obtain pain relief treatment for his
right knee.4 (Id. at 5.) He started working at Amazon, LLC a few days later, on approximately
3 Govan does not raise any specific state law claims, and his citation to a section of the
Pennsylvania Code is made as part of his procedural due process claim. Moreover, Govan
provides Pennsylvania addresses for himself and each Defendant. (See SAC at 2-3.) Based on
his own allegations, the parties are not diverse for purposes of establishing the Court’s
jurisdiction over any state law claims he intends to pursue.
4 Govan attaches copies of medical records to his SAC, seemingly to support these assertions.
(SAC at 7, 12-13.)
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 8

4
May 13, 2021. (Id.) Govan alleges that Amazon had him “working in a freezer for over 2½
hours” on June 27, 2021. (Id.) He claims that he had “visual impairments” and had run out of
“medication for [his] vision,” and an “emergency appointment was made” for June 29, 2021.
(Id.)
On July 5, 2021, Govan filed a discrimination complaint with the PHRC against Amazon,
and he received a stamped copy of his complaint on July 8, 2021 from Defendant Rue. (Id. at 4.)
He claims that Amazon filed an answer to his complaint on October 29, 2021. (Id. at 5.) Govan
also alleges that he filed a police report on April 15, 2022 because Amazon Disability and Leave
Service was harassing him with phone calls and threats of termination “in the early mornings and
late at night for a week.” (Id. at 5, 8.) Govan was informed by a police detective that because he
already had a complaint pending with the PHRC, he should inform the investigator at PHRC of
the alleged conduct. (Id. at 5.) Govan advised Rue who allegedly told him to file a complaint
with the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights
(“OCR”). (Id.) According to an attachment to the SAC, Govan filed a complaint with the OCR
on April 22, 2022, and in response, the OCR informed him that it did not have authority to
investigate his complaint because Amazon Disability and Leave Service was not a covered entity
under the privacy and security rules. (Id. at 11.)
Based on the foregoing allegations, Govan alleges that his Fifth Amendment rights have
been violated, and he also lists “fraud – mail – wire,” citing to 18 U.S.C. § 13415 and 16 Pa.
5 Courts have held that there is no private right of action created by the federal mail fraud statute,
18 U.S.C. § 1341. See Jones v. TD Bank, 468 F. App’x 93, 94 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“To
the extent that Jones attempted to sue under the Federal Mail Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, he
lacked a private right of action to do so.” ) (citing Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402,
408 (8th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases)). This claim is not plausible and will be dismissed with
prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Code § 42.61. (Id. at 3.) He contends that he “never received any documents indicating
approval or disapproval of a preliminary hearing.”6 (Id.) He seeks $500,000 in monetary
damages “for the pain and suffering” he has experienced since June 9, 2021. (Id. at 5.)
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Mr. Govan has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) requires the Court to screen and dismiss the SAC if it is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. Whether a pleading fails to state a
claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the SAC contains
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted); Talley v. Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275,
286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021). At this early stage of the litigation, the Court will accept the facts alleged
in the SAC as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and ask only whether
the SAC contains facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th
6 16 Pa. Code § 42.61 provides that:
Whenever a case is closed, the Commission will notify all parties in writing of the
following:
(1) The closing, together with a statement of the reason therefor.
(2) The right of the complainant to request a preliminary hearing in accordance
with § 42.62 (relating to request for a preliminary hearing).
(3) The right of the complainant to bring an action in the court of common pleas
of the county wherein the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice took place.
The duty of the complainant to serve a copy of the court complaint on the
Commission, in an action so brought, at the same time the complaint is filed in
court.
Attached to the SAC are letters reflecting Govan’s request for a preliminary hearing and the
PHRC’s acknowledgment his request. (SAC at 14-15.)
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 8

6
366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Fisher v. Hollingsworth,
115 F.4th 197 (3d Cir. 2024) (3d Cir. 2024). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678.
The Court construes the allegations of a pro se Complaint liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8
F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021). However, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their
complaints to support a claim.’” Id. (quoting Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239,
245 (3d Cir. 2013)). An unrepresented litigant “cannot flout procedural rules — they must abide
by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.” Id.; see also Doe v. Allegheny Cnty. Hous.
Auth., No. 23-1105, 2024 WL 379959, at *3 (3d Cir. Feb. 1, 2024) (“While a court must liberally
construe the allegations and ‘apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant
mentioned it by name,’ Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002), this does not require
the court to act as an advocate to identify any possible claim that the facts alleged could
potentially support.”).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Govan appears to assert due process claims, which may be brought in a federal court
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that
the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liberally construing his claims, it appears that Govan avers that
his due process rights were violated by Defendants at some point because he did not receive any
notification as to whether his preliminary hearing request was granted or denied, as required by
16 Pa. Code § 42.61 of the PHRC’s Special Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure.
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 6 of 8

7
As with his initial Complaint, Mr. Govan has again failed to allege the personal
involvement of several of the Defendants in any constitutional injury. See October
Memorandum, 2025 WL 3036502, at *5 (citing Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207). As Govan was
previously told, a complaint must articulate actions taken by each defendant in relation to the
plaintiff’s claims in a manner that is not ambiguous or confusing. Id. at *4 (citing Garrett, 938
F.3d at 93). The SAC, however, asserts no allegations against Defendants Millard or Williams
and therefore, any claims against them are implausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (explaining
that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that
each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated
the Constitution”). With respect to Defendants Rue and Chapman, the only allegations Govan
makes are that Rue acknowledged his filing of a PHRC complaint and later directed him to the
OCR to report Amazon’s alleged conduct (SAC at 4), while Chapman remarked that a certified
record did not exist concerning Mr. Govan’s petition for review (SAC at 5). This conduct fails
to give rise to a plausible due process claim.
A plaintiff may assert a Fourteenth Amendment claim under the “procedural” aspect of
the Due Process Clause, which guarantees fair procedure for the deprivation of a constitutionally
protected interest in life, liberty, or property. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990). The
alleged failure to notify Govan as to whether his preliminary hearing request was granted or
denied, however, cannot be a plausible procedural due process violation because the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that “although a complainant may
request a preliminary hearing to determine whether the complaint was properly dismissed, the
PHRC need not grant one whenever one is requested.” See Cook v. Floyd, 398 F. App’x 702,
704 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing 16 Pa. Code § 42.62; Baker v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Comm’n,
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 7 of 8

8
489 A.2d 1354, 1357-58 (Pa. 1985)). Moreover, Mr. Govan cannot make out a due process
claim against the named Defendants, who are all PHRC employees, because the “PHRC’s
determinations are not binding or unappealable.” Id.; see also Kehres v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Bd. of
Rev., No. 05-3498, 2005 WL 2456005, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2005) (finding there was no
violation of plaintiff’s due process rights, even if the PHRC employees failed to properly
investigate the plaintiff’s claims and failed to consider evidence that plaintiff sent them, as
determinations by the PHRC are not binding).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the SAC with prejudice and without
leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court
concludes that further attempts at amendment would be futile. See Posey v. Klinefelter, No. 25-
1428, 2025 WL 1937084, at *2 (3d Cir. July 15, 2025) (per curiam) (“A District Court has
discretion to deny a plaintiff leave to amend where the plaintiff was put on notice as to the
deficiencies in his complaint, but chose not to resolve them.”) (quoting Krantz v. Prudential Invs.
Fund Mgmt. LLC, 305 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam); Jones v. Unknown D.O.C. Bus
Driver & Transportation Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 2019) (amendment by pro se litigant
would be futile when litigant “already had two chances to tell his story”); Robinson v. Delbalso,
No. 22-2378, slip op. at 5 (3d. Cir. Nov. 28, 2022) (per curiam) (“[B]ecause Robinson has had
two opportunities to amend his complaint, declining to grant further leave to amend was
proper.”). An appropriate Order dismissing this case will be entered separately. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 58(a).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
__________________________________________
GERALD A. MCHUGH, J.
Case 2:25-cv-05442-GAM Document 11 Filed 01/08/26 Page 8 of 8