Boyle v. Peretto et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SHANNON BOYLE, 	Case No. 	2:25-cv-00223
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
PATTI PERETTO, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) addresses Plaintiff’s complaint and
motion for discovery. 	(ECF No. 2.) 	Pro Se Plaintiff Shannon Boyle filed this
lawsuit against five Iron County Commissioners: 	Patti Peretto, Pete Judd, Mark
Stauber, Ean Bruette, and Jacob Conery.1 	Boyle alleges in his complaint that this
Court has jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction. 	His statements
regarding this Court’s jurisdiction are shown below.
1 	Boyle has filed four other cases that fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction and/or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See Boyle
v. CoVantage Credit Union, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-158-PLM; Boyle v. State of
Michigan Child Protective Services, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-161-RJJ; Boyle v.
Iron County Friend of the Court, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-162-JMB; and Boyle v.
United States Attorney General, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-173-PLM.
Case 2:25-cv-00223-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 1
of 4

2
(ECF No. 1, PageID.4.)
His factual assertions are similarly brief:
(Id., PageID.5.)
Boyle requests 50 Trillion dollars in damages. 	(Id.)
“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 Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 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
Case 2:25-cv-00223-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 2
of 4

3
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. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir.1996)).
As a starting point, Shannon Boyle has asserted no actionable claims in his
complaint. 	The complaint, at best, is conclusory and speculative. 	Boyle raises no
federal cause of action.
Also, Boyle has alleged no facts showing that he has standing to redress any
claim, assuming one exists. 	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
Case 2:25-cv-00223-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 3
of 4

4
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 	Id. at 561 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Boyle’s complaint identifies no claim that pertains to him. 	Boyle has failed to
identify an injury in fact.
Boyle also requests to receive all “personal financials of Defendants and Iron
County.” 	(ECF No.2, PageID.7.) 	Boyle’s request is improper. 	He has failed to
make an appropriate discovery request that conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
II. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court dismiss this case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. 	It is further recommended that the Court deny Boyle’s
discovery request because it is improper.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: 	Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	November 25, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00223-JMB-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 4
of 4