Williams v. Long et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ROOSEVELT L. WILLIAMS, 	Case No. 	1:26-cv-718
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Chief U.S. District Judge
v.
CRAIG LONG, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Roosevelt Lashawn Williams filed his complaint on March 4,
2026. 	Williams brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Battle Creek Police
Cpl. Craig Long, Sgt. Champlin, the Battle Creek Police Department, and private
citizen Amber Lamott. 	Williams asserts that Defendants violated his Fourth,
Fourteenth, and Fifth Amendment rights when Cpl. Long and Sgt. Champlin
responded 	to 	an 	allegedly 	false 	police 	report 	by 	Amber 	Lamott. 	Williams’s
Complaint also asserts Michigan state law claims.
The Court granted Williams leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 6,
2026.
II. Factual Allegations
It should be noted that Williams’s Complaint is not entirely clear. 	The
Complaint indicates that Williams is a sex offender and that he is required to comply
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 1
of 7

2
with residential registration requirements. 	Williams asserts “from time to time” he
would stay at an apartment located in Battle Creek, MI leased by an unnamed
individual. 	ECF No. 1, PageID.8. 	Williams alleges that Amber Lamott reported to
the police that Williams was living at the Battle Creek apartment — which is not the
address that corresponded to his sex offender registry. 	Id., PageID.7. 	Sgt.
Champlin and Cpl. Long responded to Lamott’s report on February 18, 2026. 	Id.
Williams claims that a police officer notified the apartment landlord that Williams
was “publicly listed as LIVING at the apartment.” 	Id., PageID.8. 	Williams asserts
that this notification led to the unnamed apartment tenant receiving a lease violation
for an unauthorized occupant. 	Id.
III. 	Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Cpl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 	While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. 	Id. 	The
court must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” 	Id. at 570. 	“A claim has facial plausibility
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 2
of 7

3
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. 	Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
IV. 	Analysis
A. Jurisdiction and Standing
“As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise only those powers
authorized by the Constitution and statute.” 	Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th
Cir. 2001). 	Federal courts have an on-going obligation to examine whether they
have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action and may raise the issue sua sponte.
Hertz Cpl. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); Arbaugh v. Y&H Cpl., 546 U.S. 500, 506
(2006). 	This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over actions that involve
“federal questions” that arise under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the
United States. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	Ultimately, the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing that this Court has jurisdiction. 	Peterson v. City of Grand Rapids, 182
F. Supp. 3d 750, 753 (W.D. Mich. 2016) (citing RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse
Elec. Cpl., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir.1996)).
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 3
of 7

4
First, 	Williams 	asserts 	a 	landlord-tenant 	dispute 	under 	the 	guise 	of
constitutional 	violations. 	Williams 	Complaint 	states 	that 	Defendants 	alleged
conduct led to an unauthorized lease violation. 	Thus, this is a contract issue and
this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Furthermore, assuming a claim exists at all, Williams lacks standing because
he has not identified an injury in fact. 	For a plaintiff to invoke federal jurisdiction
to bring suit in the federal courts, he must demonstrate standing. 	Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561–62 (1992); Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642, 647
(6th Cir. 2004). 	Standing is central to the “case-or-controversy” requirement
associated with Article III of the Constitution. 	Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330,
338 (2016). 	Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he (1) suffered an injury
in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3)
that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. 	Id. 	An injury in
fact is a harm suffered by a plaintiff that (1) concrete and particularized and (2) not
conjectural or hypothetical. 	Nader v. Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459, 471 (6th Cir. 2008).
Traceability requires “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of” and that the conduct not be a result of “the independent action of some
third party.” 	Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. 	(internal quotation marks omitted). 	And for
an injury to be redressable, it must be “likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 	Id. at 561 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 4
of 7

5
Here, Williams claims that the tenant of the apartment in Battle Creek
received an unauthorized occupant lease violation:
ECF No. 1, PageID.8. 	Williams asserts only an injury suffered by a non-party.
Williams does not identify any concrete and particularized injury that he personally
suffered due to Defendants’ conduct.
Accordingly, the Complaint does not include what is required to state a federal
cause of action that can invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
B. Conclusory Allegations
Alternatively, Williams’s claims against Defendants are conclusory. 	It is a
basic pleading essential that a plaintiff attribute factual allegations to particular
defendants. 	See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (holding that, to state a claim, a plaintiff
must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). The
Sixth Circuit “has consistently held that damage claims against government officials
arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must allege, with particularity,
facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted constitutional
right.” Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Terrance v.
Northville Reg’l Psych. Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002)).
Where a person is named as a defendant without an allegation of specific
conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even under the liberal construction
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 5
of 7

6
afforded to pro se complaints. 	See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir.
2002) (dismissing the plaintiff’s claims where the complaint did not allege with any
degree of specificity which of the named defendants were personally involved in or
responsible for each alleged violation of rights); Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 00-3402,
2000 WL 1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of personal
involvement against each defendant) (citing Salehpour v. Univ. of Tenn., 159 F.3d
199, 206 (6th Cir. 1998)); Rodriguez v. Jabe, No. 90-1010, 1990 WL 82722, at *1 (6th
Cir. June 19, 1990) (“Plaintiff’s claims against those individuals are without a basis
in law as the complaint is totally devoid of allegations as to them which would suggest
their involvement in the events leading to his injuries.”).
In his Complaint, Williams makes a conclusory statement that Defendants
violated 	his 	Fourth, 	Fourteenth, 	and 	Fifth 	Amendment 	rights, 	in 	addition 	to
Michigan state law claims. 	ECF No. 1, PageID. 11-13. 	Williams does not state
with a sufficient degree of specificity how each Defendant was personally involved or
responsible for each alleged violation.
Because Plaintiff’s allegations fall far short of the minimal pleading standards
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief”), it is recommended that the Court dismiss this
Complaint.
IV. 	Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
the Court dismiss Williams’s Complaint because this Court lacks subject matter
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 6
of 7

7
jurisdiction, or alternatively, because Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of the minimal
pleading standards.
Dated: 	March 11, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed and served within
fourteen days of service of this notice on you. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). 	All objections and responses to objections are governed by W.D. Mich.
LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any
further right of appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:26-cv-00718-HYJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/11/26 Page 7
of 7