Harris v. Winfrey et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID .< pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAYLIN HARRIS
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 25-cv-11590 Honorable Linda V. Parker Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.
JANICE WINFREY and CITY OF DETROIT ELECTION COMMISSION
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE IVY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 2025, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS MOOT
On May 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed an "Emergency Complaint for Mandamus and Injunctive Relief" against Janice Winfrey, in her official capacity as City of Detroit Clerk, and the City of Detroit Election Commission. (ECF No. 1.) In the filing, Plaintiff complained about his inability to run as a named candidate for Detroit's District 1 Police Commissioner because of a "back balance" stemming from 2021 and issues related to his residency. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.2.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28
1
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive
matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 10.)
On June 3, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint,
as his initial complaint failed to specify the Court’s basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6 at PageID.15-16.) On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed his
amended complaint and claimed that it was “unconstitutional to deny [his]
placement on the ballot based on an outstanding balance.” (ECF No. 7 at
PageID.17.) On June 16, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a second
amended complaint because he failed to include previously stated factual
allegations relevant to his requested relief. (ECF No. 11 at PageID.24.) Magistrate
Judge Ivy also determined that the legal development and facts in Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),
which requires a plaintiff to provide “a short and plain statement” of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction, and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on June 30, 2025. (ECF No.
14.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 6, 2025. (ECF
No. 21.) Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss as well as a
motion for default judgment later that day on August 6, 2025. (ECF Nos. 21 &
22.)
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 9

3
Presently before the Court is Judge Ivy’s report and recommendation
(“R&R”) dated September 30, 2025, which recommends that the Court grant
Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment. (ECF No. 35.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms Judge
Ivy’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, rejects Plaintiff’s objections, and
adopts the recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as moot.
Standard of Review
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation on a dispositive matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which the objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party’s
objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001)
(citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the
report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal on those issues. See
Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987).
Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate judge’s
report releases the Court from its duty to independently review those issues. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 9

4
Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Article III of the United States Constitution provides that federal courts may
only exercise jurisdiction over an actual “case or controversy.” U.S CONST. art.
III, § 2. In order for a case or controversy to exist, the plaintiff must have
“standing.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016). To establish
standing under Article III, the plaintiff must plead facts that show: (1) they
suffered an injury in fact; (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of
the defendant; and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
To establish an injury in fact, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they suffered
“an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized”
and “actual or imminent,” rather than “conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 560.
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these
elements. Id. Here, Plaintiff bears this burden. Given that the present matter is at
the pleading stage, the Court will view all facts alleged in the complaint as true,
and Plaintiff must present sufficient facts for the Court to determine that he has
plausibly alleged standing.
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 9

5
Application and Analysis
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to
which Plaintiff has objected. Specifically, Plaintiff objects to Judge Ivy’s
determination that: (1) Plaintiff suffered no injury in fact with respect to his
attempt to run as a named candidate in Detroit’s 2025 local election; (2) the injury
Plaintiff alleged in his second amended complaint is hypothetical; (3) Plaintiff’s
concerns relating to Detroit’s 2024 election are moot; and (4) Plaintiff did not
establish subject matter jurisdiction.
(a) No Injury in Fact
Judge Ivy determined that Plaintiff did not suffer an injury with respect to
his attempt to run as a named candidate because Plaintiff never submitted the
required paperwork to appear on the ballot. (ECF No. 35 at PageID.149-150.)
Upon review, the Court reaches the same conclusion. Plaintiff has not suffered a
cognizable injury under Article III because he failed to submit the necessary
paperwork to seek ballot access and, as a result, was never subject to any
disqualification or adverse action by Defendant.
This fact is underscored by the affidavit of Gina Avery-Walker, who serves
as the Director of the City of Detroit’s Department of Elections. (ECF No. 20-1.)
According to her affidavit, one of her responsibilities includes “preparing and
signing disqualification notice letters to potential candidates for municipal offices
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 9

6
who have been disqualified from appearing on the ballot.” (Id. at PageID.58.) Ms.
Avery-Walker testified that “at no time in 2025 did the Department disqualify
Plaintiff . . . from running . . . during the 2025 election cycle.” 1 (Id.)
Additionally, even up until August 2, 2025, the Department still had not received
any paperwork from Plaintiff regarding his desire to be placed on the ballot during
the August 5, 2025, Primary Election, or the November 4, 2025, General Election.
(Id. at PageID.57.) Accordingly, because Plaintiff never initiated the candidacy
process and did not suffer any official adverse action affecting his eligibility, he
has failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury sufficient for
standing. Without an actual denial of ballot access or other official action by
Defendant, Plaintiff’s claims remain speculative and nonjusticiable under Article
III.
(b) Plaintiff Alleged a Hypothetical Injury
Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to submit the required paperwork to
the Department. Plaintiff’s initial complaint, first amended complaint, and second
amended complaint are void of any suggestions that he was formally disqualified
from running as a named candidate in the 2025 election. (ECF Nos. 1, 7 & 14.)
1 In note 2 of the Report and Recommendation, Judge Ivy acknowledged that the Parties filed supplemental briefs to
address Plaintiff’s write-in eligibility and potential write-in disqualification. (ECF No. 35 at PageID.141.)
However, because the briefs were filed without the Court’s permission, Judge Ivy did not consider their contents.
Nonetheless, the Court includes this footnote to provide context and to clarify that references to “disqualification”
pertain only to Plaintiff’s attempt to run as a named candidate.
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 9

7
Instead, Plaintiff suggests—only in filings submitted after his complaint—that he
chose not to submit his paperwork because Defendant prevented him from doing
so because of his outstanding balance. (ECF No 21 at PageID.62.) The Court
acknowledges that Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and that the formalities of litigation
and motion practice can be complex. However, without Plaintiff establishing the
facts necessary for standing in his amended complaint(s), the Court cannot exercise
jurisdiction.
(c) Plaintiff’s Concerns Regarding the 2024 Election
Plaintiff’s initial complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended
complaint each make clear that the claims before the Court are limited to his
attempts to seek candidacy during the 2025 election cycle. However, on July 30,
2025, Plaintiff uploaded an exhibit containing a letter discussing his formal
disqualification from the 2024 election. (ECF No. 18 at 44.) To the extent
Plaintiff intends to rely on that attachment to serve as the basis for a new claim
relating to his 2024 disqualification, that issue is not properly before the Court. As
previously stated, — and as reflected in all of Plaintiff’s complaints — his claims
pertain solely to the 2025 election. Accordingly, the Court cannot address the
merits of any concerns related to prior election cycles or claims not presented in
Plaintiff’s complaint.
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 7 of 9

Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-Cl ECF No. 39, PagelD.<pagelD> Filed 11/12/25 Page 8 of 9

9
Conclusion
The Court made a de novo determination of the issues raised in Plaintiff’s
objections and reaches the same conclusion as Judge Ivy. Plaintiff failed to
properly allege that he suffered an injury in fact, so this matter must be dismissed.
Given that Plaintiff never suffered an actual injury, the Court finds that there is no
case or controversy to adjudicate.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to allege facts in his complaint(s) to establish
subject matter jurisdiction and failed to set forth viable objections to Magistrate
Judge Ivy’s R&R. The Court therefore adopts Judge Ivy’s recommendations.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 12, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 12, 2025, by electronic
and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-11590-LVP-CI ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 9 of 9