Hawkins v. DHS Social Service et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEON HAWKINS,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
v. 	Case No. 1:25-CV-1201
DHS SOCIAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this action October 7, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff
has been permitted to proceed as a pauper (ECF No. 4), the Court has reviewed
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed as detailed herein.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action against: (1) Medicare; (2) Social Security;
(3) Michigan DHS Human Research Center (DHS); (4) Lansing Police Department
(LPD); and (5) Capital Area Transit Authority (CATA). While much of Plaintiff’s
complaint is indiscernible, with references to slavery, Abraham Lincoln, and Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., the genesis of this action appears to be an incident that
Case 1:25-cv-01201-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1
of 5

2
occurred while Plaintiff was riding a CATA bus. With respect to such, Plaintiff
alleges the following.
On August 27 or 28, 2025, Plaintiff was riding a CATA bus. At some point,
the bus stopped, allowing Plaintiff to exit. Before Plaintiff could completely exit the
bus, however, the bus doors closed on Plaintiff causing him to suffer serious physical
injury. Plaintiff has included with his complaint copies of medical records
supporting these allegations. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.11-24).
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 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
Case 1:25-cv-01201-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2
of 5

3
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).
I. 	Defendants Medicare, Social Security, DHS, and LPD
While not entirely clear, it appears that, with respect to these Defendants,
Plaintiff is alleging federal claims involving the Medicare Act and federal laws
regarding fraud. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.31). Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts,
which, even if accepted as true, establish a claim against these Defendants.
First, with respect to the Lansing Police Department, Plaintiff advances
absolutely no allegations. Second, as for Medicare, Social Security, and DHS,
Plaintiff has attached documents to his complaint that suggest that Plaintiff and/or
his wife have experienced difficulties with medical insurance obtained via the Health
Insurance Marketplace. (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.25-30). Aside from attaching these
documents, however, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts concerning this
circumstance or implicating these Defendants. Accordingly, the undersigned
Case 1:25-cv-01201-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3
of 5

4
recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants be dismissed for failure
to state a claim.
II. 	Defendant CATA
With respect to CATA, Plaintiff appears to be asserting state law tort claims
for personal injury. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.31). While Plaintiff’s allegations suffice
to state a claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such
claims.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it “has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction.” Indeed, “if the federal claims are dismissed before
trial. . .the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Taylor v. First of America
Bank - Wayne, 973 F.2d 1284, 1287 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting United Mine Workers v.
Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)); see also, Bah v. Attorney General of the State of
Tennessee, 610 Fed. Appx. 547, 555 (6th Cir., May 8, 2015) (same). As discussed
above, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s federal law claims be dismissed.
Accordingly, the undersigned further recommends that the Court decline to exercise
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and instead dismiss such without
prejudice so that Plaintiff may pursue them in the appropriate state forum.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
federal law claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
Case 1:25-cv-01201-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 4
of 5

5
granted. The undersigned further recommends that Plaintiff’s state law claims be
dismissed without prejudice. For the same reasons the undersigned makes this
recommendation, the undersigned finds that an appeal of such would be
frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the
undersigned further recommends that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not
be in good faith.
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: October 20, 2025 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01201-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 5
of 5