Bowman v. Kent, County of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN BOWMAN, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.
KENT COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
Hon. Paul L. Maloney
Case No. 1:25-cv-1807
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 22, 2025, I issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Court dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a claim and dismiss his state-law claim
without prejudice. (ECF No. 7.) The same day, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint as of right
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A). (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s factual
allegations and claims in his amended complaint are essentially the same as those in his original
complaint. He indicates, however, that he is updating the parties “to include Court Services as a
County actor responsible for enforcement of bond conditions.” (Id.)
In general, “[w]hen a pleading is amended pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a), the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading.” Clark v. Johnston, 413 F. App’x
804, 811 (6th Cir. 2011). “If, however, the party submitting the pleading clearly intended the latter
pleading to supplement, rather than supersede, the original pleading, some or all of the original
pleading can be incorporated in the amended pleading.” Id. at 811–12 (citing 6 Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2010)); see also Anson
v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 4:06 CV 1672, 2007 WL 1467058, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Ohio May 16,
2007) (“Although an amended complaint takes the place of the original pleading, this one is clearly
intended to supplement and not replace the original complaint. The court will therefore construe
Case 1:25-cv-01807-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 1
of 3

2
them together, and will refer to them collectively as the amended complaint.”). Here, Plaintiff has
made it clear enough that he intended his amended complaint to supplement his original complaint
by simply adding Court Services as a Defendant.
Plaintiff alleges that his bond was revoked on or about October 6, 2022, without a written
motion, notice, or a hearing, and no findings supporting the revocation were placed on the record.
(Id. at PageID.24.) Plaintiff further alleges that Court Services ordered him to report to the Kent
County Circuit Court, and when he reported as directed, he was arrested at the courthouse and
incarcerated for 90 days, following which his criminal case was dismissed by nolle prosequi. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of his right to procedural due process, unlawful pretrial
detention, failure to arraign, and Monell liability.
Plaintiff may not sue Court Services in federal court because the Eleventh Amendment
bars his claim. Court Services is a Department of the Kent County Circuit Court. See
https://www.kentcountymi.gov/1476/17th-Circuit-Court (last visited Dec. 29, 2025). The Kent
County Circuit Court is part of, and governed by, Michigan’s judicial branch. See Pucci v.
Nineteenth Dist. Ct., 628 F.3d 752, 762–63 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Mich. Const. Art. VI, § 1).
Michigan courts thus operate as arms of the State of Michigan and are entitled to the same
sovereign immunity as the state itself. Nichols v. McCarthy, No. 1:24-cv-10345, 2024 WL
5125131, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2024); Klawiter v. State of Michigan, No. 1:24-cv-851, 2024
WL 4279450, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2024). Regardless of the form of relief requested, the
states and their departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the federal
courts, unless the state has waived immunity, or Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh
Amendment immunity by statute. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
98–101 (1984); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); O’Hara v. Wigginton, 24 F.3d 823,
Case 1:25-cv-01807-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 2
of 3

3
826 (6th Cir. 1994). Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by
statute, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979), and the State of Michigan has not consented
to suit in federal court, Abick v. Michigan, 803 F.2d 874, 877 (6th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the
Eleventh Amendment precludes Plaintiff’s suit against the Court Services in this federal court.
Accordingly, in addition to the recommendations set forth in my December 22, 2025
Report and Recommendation, I recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s action against Court
Services as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Date: December 31, 2025 	/s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
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-01807-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/31/25 Page 3
of 3