United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
STEVEN D. COLLYMORE, Plaintiff,
TANNERY and HICHAM ALI HASSAN a/k/a SAM HASSAN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SOROKIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons stated below, defendant Tannery's motion to
dismiss the original complaint is DENIED as
MOOT, and defendant Tannery's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint is DENIED.
August 2, 2018, pro se plaintiff Steven D. Collymore
(“Collymore”) filed a verified complaint against
defendant Tannery and unnamed others alleging that he was
discriminated against on the basis of race when he was
approached by the store manager, asked to leave and told
“we don't want your kind in here.” Compl.,
pp. 4, 6, ECF No. 1.
August 20, 2018, Collymore moved to amend his complaint,
apparently to include the identity of the store manager. ECF
No. 9. On September 6, 2018, Collymore's motion was
allowed, and Collymore was ordered to file his amended
complaint. On September 13, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The single-page amended complaint, signed under
the pains and penalties of perjury, identifies the defendants
in the caption and alleges in full:
On or around the week of December 10th 2017 I, Steven D.
Collymore walked into the Tannery with hopes of purchasing a
“Gucci” belt for a birthday gift for my then
As I was browsing through the belt section located on the
first floor of the Tannery near the cash register I
immediately was made most uncomfortable and store employees
made it abundantly clear that I was being closely watched.
I ignored this blatant racial profiling as it is customary
behavior throughout the majority of the establishments in and
or around the Boylston, Newbury St. area especially if your
Before I could make my selection and “purchase”
my belt I was approached now by the store manager and was
asked to leave but not before the store manager stated to me,
“we don't want your kind here”
Amended Compl., ECF No. 18 (syntax and punctuation in
September 8, 2018, Tannery appeared in this action and moved
to dismiss the original complaint. ECF Nos. 13, 14 and 15.
Collymore filed his response to the motion to dismiss on
October 4, 2018. ECF No. 25. On October 5, 2018, Tannery
filed an almost identical motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. ECF No. 26. Collymore did not respond to the
second motion to dismiss.
The Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint is
motion to dismiss the original complaint (ECF No. 14) was no
longer operative upon Collymore's filing of the amended
complaint, as ordered by the Court. Accordingly,
Tannery's motion to dismiss the original complaint (ECF
No. 14) is DENIED as MOOT. To the extent it
were not moot, it would be denied for substantially the ...