Tyran v. People of the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID J.W. TYRAN, JR.,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00898
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 21).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s
motion be granted and that this action be terminated.
I. Background
In his two-page Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he “ha[s] been victimized by the
citizens of the United States,” who violated his “constitutional right to pursue
happiness.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.1). Plaintiff alleges that he “ha[s] multiple untreated
spinal and cartilage/bone fractures” and that he is “living [his] one life in severe pain due
to the actions of U.S. citizens.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). Plaintiff requests $250 billion
in relief. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed three supplements to his Complaint. (ECF No. 14, 15, 16). In the
first supplement, Plaintiff alleges various medical ailments, asserting that he has been
“victimized by the medical community.” (ECF No. 14, PageID.31-35). Plaintiff also
Case 1:25-cv-00898-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/12/26 Page 1
of 4

-2-
alleges that Michigan and the United States “betrayed him.” (ECF No. 14, PageID.35).
In the second supplement, Plaintiff further alleges that he sustained various back, groin,
hip, and feet injuries stemming from incidents with the Kalamazoo Police Department
and his son, and treatment from Dr. Dale Rowe. (ECF No. 15, PageID.37-39). In his
final supplement, Plaintiff alleges that he was deliberately harmed by the people of the
United States when he underwent an “unnecessary” CT scan on October 9, 2025. (ECF
No. 16, PageID.42-43). Plaintiff ultimately asserts that “[t]he U.S. is criminally
victimizing [him] to create and solidify jobs in the healthcare industry, and it seems to
create jobs in the field of law.” (ECF No. 16, PageID.43).
Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim.
(ECF No. 21). Plaintiff responded. (ECF No. 26). The Court finds that oral argument
is unnecessary. See W.D. MICH. LCIVR 7.2(d).
II. Analysis
A claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above
the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). As the Supreme Court has
held, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
Case 1:25-cv-00898-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/12/26 Page 2
of 4

-3-
unlawfully.” If the complaint simply pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a
defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. As the Court further observed:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice . . . Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the
hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock
the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss . . . . Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be
a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense. But where the well pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not “show[n]”—“that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide dates, locations, or names of individuals
or entities acting on behalf of the federal government to sustain any viable cause of action
against it. Plaintiff’s claims against the people of the United States are precisely the
kind of “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed–me accusation[s]” that are
facially implausible and not viable under Twombly and Iqbal. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
To the extent that Plaintiff initiates this action against the federal government or
its agencies, absent a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
such a suit. See Skidmore, v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 25-10084, 2026 WL 622850, at *1
Case 1:25-cv-00898-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/12/26 Page 3
of 4

-4-
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2026); see also Gao v. Jenifer, 185 F.3d 548, 554 (6th Cir. 1999). As
Defendant argues and the undersigned agrees, Plaintiff’s vague allegations are
insufficient to identify any statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. (ECF No. 22,
PageID.61). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendant’s motion be
granted and this action terminated.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) be granted and that this action be
terminated. For the same reasons the undersigned makes these recommendations,
the undersigned further recommends that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would
not be in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 12, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00898-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/12/26 Page 4
of 4