Krusell v. Leirstein et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL JAMES KRUSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN BANKEY, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Case No. 1:25-cv-1268
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael James Krusell, who appears to be either a pretrial detainee or a convicted
prisoner held at the Emmet County Correctional Facility, filed his pro se complaint in this case on
October 20, 2025 against 44 individual and entity Defendants, including but not limited to, Emmet,
Genesee, and Washtenaw Counties, the University of Michigan, Harbor Oaks Hospital, the
Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice,
the Department of Defense, and AT&T. Having granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper
(ECF No. 4), I have conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). I conclude that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is firmly established that a court may dismiss an action sua sponte “for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “when the
allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479–80 (6th Cir. 1999); see
also Wagenknecht v. United States, 533 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. 2008). With all due respect to
Plaintiff, his complaint is incomprehensible. It consists of ten pages of incoherent, rambling, and
disjointed statements that the Court does not understand and that plead no discernible legal claim.
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 1
of 2

2
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the lenient treatment pro se
plaintiffs receive has limits. See e.g., Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Pro
se litigants must still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure
allegations on their behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). Having
conducted a careful review of Plaintiff’s filing, I am unable to identify any claim within this
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court must also decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir.
1997). Good faith is judged objectively, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), and
an appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous, defined as lacking an
arguable basis either in fact or law. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir.
2001). For the same reasons that I recommend dismissal of the action, I discern no good faith basis
for an appeal and recommend that, should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court assess the
$605.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to Section 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.
Date: October 24, 2025 	/s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court
within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file
objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 2
of 2