Stevens #946853 v. Hinkley et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT JORY STEVENS,
Case No. 1:25-cv-1695
Plaintiff,
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
v.
STEVE HINKLEY, et al.,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a pro se lawsuit filed by Robert Jory Stevens (“plaintiff”), a prisoner in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). 	For the reasons set forth below,
this complaint should be dismissed.
I. 	Plaintiff’s complaint
Plaintiff appears to have sued 27 defendants: Calhoun County Sheriff Steve
Hinkley; Deputy Sheriff Scott Ebby; Deputy Sheriff Christopher O’Connor; Sheriff Deputy Reed;
Shay Smith (stepsister); Robert Duglas Stevens (stepfather); Sheriff Brett Grobbs; Jerold
Burchfield; Mikal Burchfield; Mason Burchfield; Mike Burchfield; Norma Carpenter; Norm
Carpenter; Jason Magnus; Shay Smith; Ronnie Smith; Norm Blowers; Lynn Pemberton; Scott
Hunt; Jennifer Hunt; Autum Carpenter; Mikey Clark; Jay Pasantie; Derick Wilson; Jeramey
Malone; Leslie Jean Stevens (adopted mother); and Misty Edwards.
Plaintiff’s allegations are generally unintelligible and at times incoherent stating (in
his words):
Complaints made to John G. Roberts Federal Building Washington DC on
Michigan Law Enforcement Breaking My Civil Rights Invasions of privacy with
Case 1:25-cv-01695-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 1
of 4

2
family that were not even police officers using sonic Hearing and A I Frequency
Artifical Intelegence on me in Branch County, Calhoun County, Jackson County,
Ionia County when they live in Sherwood and Coldwater Michigan. I want phone
pings from all defendants, and the have made organized Crime by plotting with
Calhoun County Sheriffs Department using a computer to torture me for the last
twenty months in the lower part of Michigan I sent law suits out Dec 04th 2025 to
Calhoun County SHERIFFS Department Battle Creek Michigan 49037 and
Department of Justice, lawsuit the same day, letters written to FBI Director PATEL
nothing done.
Compl. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3).
Plaintiff further alleged (in his words) that,
Since April 13th 2024 Calhoun County Sheriff has been using this A-I-
Frequency, to talk to me through Communication Frequencies in Calhoun County
where it was reported to the FBI as Seirs training and a death threat to Donald
Trump which was called in September 16th 2024 on a Monday around 8:12 AM,
Calhoun County then followed me to Branch County where several complaints
were made to the pros office Zack Stempion, Branch County, City Cheif of police
around February 2025, Coldwater Michigan, my recovery coach Nick, Branch
County Sheriffs Office STG Spalding, SGT Renshaw, where they have been doing
it in Calhoun County, Battle Creek Michigan, Branch County Michigan, Jackson
County Michigan where I went to prison cause I have PTSD and they have been
using this frequency on me, and have been driving by doing it, so I elbowed a
window and broke it, and then was a attacked and defended myself so they sent me
to prison, cause no one would look into this matter of Calhoun County SHERIFF
pulling a state operation and lying to people and violating my Civil Rights and my
PTSD. they have been also doing it in the Michigan Department of Corrections,
where letters have been mailed to (FBI Director) “PATEL”, “Michigan State
Police”, “Congress” “Cardi B” cause they have been using HER NAME!! Gretchen
Whitmore was written, Tribal police were contacted, Federal Marshalls were
contacted, I left all out going mail Blog at two churches, and all out going packet
at Ms MACKS office @ Branch County Prosecutors Office date of accurance April
13th 2024 until November 11/19/2025 While in prison in Branch County Jail
Jackson prison IONIA prison Calhoun County have been making complaints sence
2024 to Judge Sarah Lincoln Ford Calhoun County Justice Complex Im filing on
the lower end as well thanks for your timley matter They were meddling in the
Election in Calhoun County Michigan SHERIFFS Department in September with
A-I Frequency.
Id. at PageID.5.
Case 1:25-cv-01695-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 2
of 4

3
For his relief, plaintiff stated (in his words):
I want lawsuits filed on them and something done about the cyber-bullying,
me 	tortureing 	me, 	and 	stalking 	me 	with 	the 	Calhoun 	County 	SHERIFFs
Department and my Family Helping them on a Federal level, and violating my Civil
Rights and others at all places and Charges pressed on all Defendents and violating
my medical conditions with my PTSD.
Id. at PageID.6.
II. 	Discussion
The Court should dismiss this frivolous complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. 	“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” which “possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction,
and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (internal
citations omitted). 	Federal subject-matter jurisdiction “can never be waived or forfeited,”
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012), and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte
whether they have such jurisdiction,” Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1064
(6th Cir. 2014). In this regard, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) provides that “If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” See Arbaugh
v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (Federal courts “have an independent obligation to
determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.”); Rauch v. Day & Night Manufacturing Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 701 (6th Cir. 1978) (“Rule
12(h)(3) preserves and recognizes the court’s time-honored obligation, even sua sponte, to dismiss
any action over which it has no subject-matter jurisdiction”).
“[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
Case 1:25-cv-01695-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 3
of 4

4
the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid
of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” 	Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999).
Here, plaintiff’s complaint is a generally unintelligible and at times incoherent pleading which
refers to some type of electronic surveillance, cyberbullying, and using “frequencies” to torture
plaintiff and meddle in an election. 	Plaintiff’s allegations are totally implausible, frivolous and
devoid of merit. 	Accordingly, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).1
III. 	RECOMMENDATION
For 	these 	reasons, 	I 	respectfully 	recommend 	that 	plaintiff’s 	complaint 	be
DISMISSED.
Dated: February 27, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the report. All objections and responses to
objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to serve and file written objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
1 The Court notes that plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Order
(ECF No 9). For that reason, the Court must review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which
provides that the Court “shall dismiss” actions brought in forma pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action . . . (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]” In determining whether a complaint should
be dismissed for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court applies the dismissal standard articulated
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”) (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). As discussed, this complaint should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because it is totally implausible and frivolous. By definition, such a frivolous pleading
would also be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Case 1:25-cv-01695-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 4
of 4