Johnson v. Abadi et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OLIVIA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GINA ABADI and HONG YI ZENG,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
Hon. Jane M. Beckering
Case No. 1:25-cv-1601
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, who apparently resides in Hawaii, filed her pro se complaint in this case on
December 1, 2025, against Defendants Gina Abadi and Hong Yi Zeng. (ECF No. 1.) Having
granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper (ECF No. 5), 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 and because it fails to state a claim.
Plaintiff’s complaint contains three paragraphs. In the first, Plaintiff alleges, “Defendants
conspired together in violation of due process rights.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID.1.) In the second,
Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter “under federal law.” (Id.) Finally,
Plaintiff requests $1 million in damages against Defendants. This is the entirety of Plaintiff’s
allegations.
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). Plaintiff’s complaint, which
Case 1:25-cv-01601-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 1
of 3

2
contains a single legal conclusion and no facts, fits comfortably within Apple’s standard for
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The complaint also fails to state any cognizable claim. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (internal citations and footnote omitted). As the Supreme
Court has held, to satisfy this rule, a complaint must contain “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) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. If the complaint simply “pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it
stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). As the Court further observed:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet that a
court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Rule 8 marks a
notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of
a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with
nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible
claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged—but it has not “show[n]”—“that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 678–79 (internal citations omitted).
Assuming for the sake of argument that Plaintiff intends to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, her complaint fails to state a plausible claim. It lacks any factual allegation showing that
Case 1:25-cv-01601-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 2
of 3

3
Defendants are state actors or setting forth how they violated Plaintiff’s right to due process. As
noted, Plaintiff’s single statement that Defendants conspired to violate her right to due process is
nothing more than a naked legal conclusion. Thus, the complaint should be dismissed on this
ground as well.1
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction/failure to state a claim.
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: December 3, 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).
1 The complaint also appears to be frivolous, as Plaintiff filed the exact same complaint against
these Defendants on November 20, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Johnson v. Abadi, et al., No. 1:25-cv-13481 (D. Mass.), Doc. 1; on November 20,
2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Johnson v. Abadi, et al., No.
1:25-cv-03818 (D. Md.), Doc. 1; on November 25, 2025 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Johnson v. Abadi, et al., No. 1:25-cv-25540 (S.D. Fla.), Doc. 1; and
on November 25, 2025 in the Southern District of California, Johnson v. Abadi, No. 3:25-cv-03289
(S.D. Cal.), Doc. 1. This list is not exhaustive.
Case 1:25-cv-01601-JMB-SJB ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 3
of 3