Early v. Harry

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENZEL EARLY,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:25-cv-13331
v. 	Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
United States District Judge
MICHAEL P. HARRY
(STATE FARM INSURANCE),
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Denzel Early (“Early”) filed this action against Defendant Michal P.
Harry (“Harry”), an insurance agent with State Farm Insurance, for defamation and
injury to reputation. 	See generally 	ECF No. 1. 	Concurrent with filing the
Complaint, Early also filed an Application to Proceed Without the Prepayment of
Fees. ECF No. 2. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Early’s
claims, this case is SUMMARILY DISMISSED and the Application to Proceed
Without the Prepayment of Fees is DENIED AS MOOT.
I.
Early filed this defamation action alleging that his insurance agent sent him
an email that “falsely implied that Plaintiff was mentally unstable, unsafe, or in need
Case 2:25-cv-13331-BRM-APP ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 3

2
of police or medical intervention.” ECF No. 1, PageID.2. Early claims these alleged
false statement were published to State Farm’s business domain thereby ruining his
reputation. Id. Early alleges that “his standing within his neighborhood and among
peers was injured by the false insinuation that he posed a risk or lacked mental
stability.” Id. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction directing
Harry to retract and cease defamatory implications, and his costs and attorney’s fees.
Id.
II.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), if the “court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Houston v. Garland, No. 2:22-cv-13036, 2023 WL 3212335, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May
2, 2023), aff'd, No. 23-1530, 2024 WL 1925936 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2024). Although
the Court should remain mindful that pro se complaints are to be construed liberally,
pro se complaints “must still satisfy the subject matter jurisdiction requirement.”
Lopez v. Benson, No. 2:24-cv-10916, 2024 WL 3740115, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 6,
2024). Federal Courts have jurisdiction over two types of cases: (1) cases presenting
a federal question arising under the United States Constitution, federal laws or
treaties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) cases based on diversity of citizenship
where a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state or nation and the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Case 2:25-cv-13331-BRM-APP ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 3

3
III.
Early’s Complaint brings claims of “defamation (per se and per quod),”
“negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and “violation of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.2. These claims are all
state law causes of action, and none present a federal question which the Court has
jurisdiction to hear. 	See 28 U.S.C. §1331. Further, despite requesting damages in
an amount exceeding $75,000, diversity jurisdiction fails because Early’s claims are
against Harry who, like him, is also a citizen of Michigan. See ECF No. 1, PageID.1.
Consequently, the Court lacks federal question and diversity jurisdiction to proceed
with this action.
IV.
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	1) 	is 	SUMMARILY
DISMISSED as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The case is dismissed
without prejudice, to be refiled in state court, if Early so desires. Further, Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed without the Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 2) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
This is a final order that closes the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2025 	s/Brandy R. McMillion
Detroit, Michigan 	HON. BRANDY R. MC MILLION
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-13331-BRM-APP ECF No. 4, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/22/25 Page 3 of 3