John Michael Ray Durham v. Dollar Tree Inc, and Shanea Duran

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 20, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-00110
StatusUnknown

This text of John Michael Ray Durham v. Dollar Tree Inc, and Shanea Duran (John Michael Ray Durham v. Dollar Tree Inc, and Shanea Duran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Michael Ray Durham v. Dollar Tree Inc, and Shanea Duran, (E.D. Wash. 2026).

Opinion

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 20, 2026 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 JOHN MICHAEL RAY DURHAM, No. 2:25-CV-00110-SAB 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING 11 DOLLAR TREE INC, and SHANEA COMPLAINT 12 DURAN, 13 Defendants. 14 15 On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging Fair Labor Standards 16 Act claims. ECF No. 1. On August 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed “Supplemental Pleading 17 and Amendment to Complaint for Violations of Civil Rights, Racketeering, and 18 Fraud. ECF No. 7. He also named Liberty Park Terrace Management as a 19 Defendant.1 Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter and is proceeding in 20 forma pauperis. It does not appear that Defendants have been served. 21 Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dollar Tree, Inc. failed to pay mandated 22 minimum wage for all hours work and failed to maintain accurate records of hours 23 worked and wages paid. He asserts such violations were willful. Although not 24 clear, it appears that Plaintiff is alleged that Defendant Dollar Tree provided 25 26 1 Plaintiff sued Liberty Park Terrance Management in a separate case that was 27 dismissed with prejudice on April 7, 2025, See Durham v. Liberty Park Terrace 28 Property Management, et al., 2:25-CV-00043-SAB. 1 inflated wages to HUD subsidized-housing program and state employment 2 verification, and because of this, he is entitled to payment for the additional 50.6 3 hours of work that were reported. 4 According to Plaintiff, Dollar Tree reported to HUD that he worked 80- 5 hours a month, but for the months of August through December, 2024, he actually 6 worked as follows: August: 50.7 hours; September 77.1 hours; October: 54.9 7 hours; November: 72.0 hours; and December 91.7 hours. It appears he wants to be 8 paid as if he worked 80 hours a month as reported, even though he did not work 9 those hours. 10 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 11 order to establish a failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, an 12 employee must show that in a given work week, the total amount paid divided by 13 the hours worked is below the minimum wage set by the statute. The FLSA sets 14 the national minimum wage, and it was set at $7.25 for the time period in question. 15 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1); Probert v. Family Centered Servs. Of Alaska, Inc., 651 F.3d 16 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2-11). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to show he was not 17 paid the minimum wage for the hours worked as necessary to state a claim for 18 failure to pay minimum wages under the FLSA. 19 Plaintiff filed a supplement to his claim asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 20 1983, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (RICO). Filing supplemental claims in a separate 21 filing is not proper. Rather, an Amended Complaint must be filed. Moreover, 22 Section 1983 only applies to state actors, and Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient 23 facts to establish that Dollar Tree and Shanea Duran are state actors. Additionally, 24 Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a RICO violation against 25 Defendants. 26 To the extent Plaintiff is alleging state law claims against Defendants, the 27 Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See United 28 Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (cautioning federal courts on exercising jurisdiction over state law claims if federal claims are dismissed). Finally, it is clear that any amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint would be 3|| futile, given that based on the facts alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint regarding the hours he worked, Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants violated the Fair Labors 5|| Standard Act and his § 1983 and RICO claims are frivolous. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to Plaintiff, and close the file. 10 DATED this 20th day of January 2026.

14 Stan Bastian Chief United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
383 U.S. 715 (Supreme Court, 1966)
United States v. Delaney
651 F.3d 15 (D.C. Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John Michael Ray Durham v. Dollar Tree Inc, and Shanea Duran, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-michael-ray-durham-v-dollar-tree-inc-and-shanea-duran-waed-2026.