Pounds v. Michigan, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
H ERMAN LAMOIT POUNDS , 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-679
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
STATE OF M ICHIGAN ,
et al., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Herman Pounds alleges the defendants violated his civil rights. Plaintiff filed
this lawsuit without the assistance of counsel and the court has granted his request to proceed
without payment of the filing fee. 	Between them, Defendants have collectively filed four
motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 18, 27, 30, 31 and 62). The Magistrate Judge issued a report
recommending the court grant the motions and further recommends the court dismiss the
lawsuit as frivolous (ECF No. 72). 	Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 75). 	The court will
adopt the report and recommendation.
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
Case 1:25-cv-00679-PLM-RSK ECF No. 76, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 1
of 5

2
Objection 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Plaintiff contends the court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit
because he raises federal constitutional claims. The court overrules this objection. Plaintiff’s
argument fails to address the specific findings and recommendations in the R&R.
a. 	State of Michigan. 	The Magistrate Judge concludes the Eleventh Amendment
prohibits Plaintiff from proceeding against the State of Michigan. 	Plaintiff has not
demonstrated any error here. 	“The sovereign immunity guaranteed by this Amendment
deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction when a citizen sues his own State unless
the State waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that sovereign immunity.”
Russell v.
Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1046 (citation omitted). The Magistrate Judge did not
recommend dismissing any defendant other than the State of Michigan based on the
Eleventh Amendment. 	The
Ex parte Young doctrine does permit a plaintiff to pursue
injunctive relief against a state official whose acts violate the constitution. 	The Magistrate
Judge concludes that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any of the individual defendants have
threatened enforcement of some law for which Plaintiff needs injunctive or declaratory relief.
Plaintiff’s objection does not address this particular finding.
b. 	8th District Court, Judge Ankley, and Kalamazoo County Prosecutor’s Office.
The Magistrate Judge concludes Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous because the claims are based
in theories of sovereign citizenship. 	Plaintiff has not demonstrated any error here. 	“[A]
district court may, at any time,
sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the
allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid
Case 1:25-cv-00679-PLM-RSK ECF No. 76, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 2
of 5

3
of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”
	Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir.
1999). The Magistrate Judge identified the relevant language in Plaintiff’s submissions which
establish that he bases his theories and claims in sovereign citizenship. 	Plaintiff’s decision
not to use the phrase “sovereign citizen” does not later this conclusion. To the extent any of
Plaintiff’s claims ultimately arise from theories of sovereign citizenship, those claims are
utterly frivolous and may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
c. Failure to State a Claim – Defendant Casey Johnson
The Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Johnson rely
on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute permits claims against individuals acting under color of
state law. The Magistrate Judge explained that defense attorneys are not state actors for the
purpose of § 1983. Plaintiff does not specifically address this finding or the recommendation
that Defendant Johnson be dismissed.
d. Failure to State a Claim – Defendants 8th District Court, Judge Ankley, and
Kalamazoo County Prosecutor’s Office. The Magistrate Judge concludes that the amended
complaint (ECF No. 17) fails to plead sufficient facts to support a plausible claim against
these defendants. 	The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing these defendants for the
failure to state a claim as an alternative to dismissing them for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. 	Plaintiff has not demonstrated any error here. “The complaint must ‘contain
either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements necessary for recovery
under a viable legal theory.’”
	Kreipke v. Wayne State Univ., 807 F.3d 768, 774 (6th Cir.
2015) (citation omitted). 	The factual allegations need not be detailed but must be “more
than labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Case 1:25-cv-00679-PLM-RSK ECF No. 76, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 3
of 5

4
Hobart-Mayfield, Inc. v. Nat’l Operating Comm. on Standards for Athletic Equip., 48 F.4th
656, 663 (6th Cir. 2022). 	“Naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement
contribute nothing to the sufficiency of the complaint.”
	SFS Check, LLC v. First Bank of
Delaware, 774 F.3d 351, 355 (6th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up; citation omitted). The amended
complaint generally fails to plead enough facts to establish plausible claims against these three
defendants. The allegations in the amended complaint lack sufficient detail to establish each
element of his claims.
e. Dismissal of Defendant James Graham
Defendant Graham did not file a motion to dismiss. 	The Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing the entire lawsuit as frivolous, which would include dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Graham. 	Plaintiff objects and argues that he has a
conversion claim against Defendant Graham. The court overrules this objection.
Plaintiff has not pleaded a plausible claim against Defendant Graham. Plaintiff pleads
that Graham “is a private actor acting jointly with the state to seize Plaintiff’s private
automobile” (Amended Compl. ¶ 11 PageID.76). 	Graham allegedly seized Plaintiff’s
automobile “without a warrant or due process, resulting in conversion of private property”
(
id. ¶ 19 PageID.77). 	Plaintiff makes no other factual allegations against Graham. 	These
allegations do not plead a plausible claim against Graham; the allegations are attenuated and
unsubstantial,
see Apple, 183 F.3d at 479, and are little more than naked assertions devoid
of facts,
see SFS Check, 774 F.3d at 355.
Case 1:25-cv-00679-PLM-RSK ECF No. 76, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 4
of 5

5
f. Dismissal of all Other Defendants
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the complaint as frivolous, which
would implicate Plaintiff’s claims against all of the other defendants. 	Plaintiff does not
specifically address this recommendation in his objection.
For these reasons, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No.
72). The court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 18, 27, 30, 31 and 62).
The court finds the remaining claims frivolous and DISMISSES the remaining claims for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	December 9, 2025 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00679-PLM-RSK ECF No. 76, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 5
of 5