Jackson v. Unknown Party #1 et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MICHAEL LLOYD JACKSON, 	Case No. 1:26-cv-114
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
U.S. District Judge
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1, et al.,
Defendants
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff, state prisoner Michael Lloyd Jackson, filed a civil complaint
alleging that his rights were violated because court clerks employed by the state
courts omitted, misrepresented, and falsified documents affecting his bond status.
ECF No. 1. 	Jackson asserts these actions violate his Constitutional due process
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. Id., PageID.3. Plaintiff names
as Defendants Michigan 63rd District Court Clerks with the initials A.L.V. and
K.J.A.; Michigan 17th Circuit Court Clerk with the initials SRBATENB; and
Michigan 17th Circuit Court Chief Deputy Clerk Amy Doering. 	Id.,PageID.1.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $7 million and a “thorough
investigation into each office of the court clerks.” Id., PageID.4.
When Plaintiff filed his complaint on Jan. 12, 2026, he was confined at Kent
County Correctional Facility for a pending case in Kent County. 	The undersigned
reviewed Plaintiff’s records on the Michigan Department of Corrections’ Offender
Case 1:26-cv-00114-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 1
of 6

2
Tracking Information System (OTIS) on February 4, 2026. The OTIS record indicates
that a Kent County, Michigan jury convicted Michael Lloyd Jackson, born on a known
date in 1977, of six felony offenses, including three counts of criminal sexual conduct
in the 1st degree and a single count of kidnapping. 	His sentence for each of these
convictions was 30 to 45 years in prison. 	Plaintiff was sentenced on Jan. 14, 2026,
and is currently incarcerated at Charles Egeler Reception and Guidance Center in
Jackson, MI. 	Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on January 21, 2026.
ECF No. 5.
II. Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
Case 1:26-cv-00114-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 2
of 6

3
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant
has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff asserts that the court clerks intentionally misrepresented documents
related to bond and these actions deprived him of his due process right to trial. ECF
No. 1, PageID.3. 	Plaintiff does not specify the role the court clerks had in bond
determinations or how their actions violated his due process rights. In any event, the
undersigned first considers Plaintiff’s Complaint under a Heck analysis because
Plaintiff indicates that Defendants’ actions led to his conviction.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief for
alleged violations of Constitutional rights leading to his conviction, his claims are
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In Heck, the Supreme Court held
that a state prisoner cannot make a cognizable claim under § 1983 for an alleged
unconstitutional conviction or for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless a prisoner shows that the conviction
or sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called
Case 1:26-cv-00114-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 3
of 6

4
into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Id. at 486-87
(footnote omitted). 	The holding in Heck has been extended to actions seeking
injunctive or declaratory relief. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-48 (1997)
(declaratory relief); Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir. 1998) (claim for
injunctive relief intertwined with request for damages); Wilson v. Kinkela, No. 97-
4035, 1998 WL 246401, at *1 (6th Cir. May 5, 1998) (injunctive relief). 	While it is
unclear to the Court how a bond decision would retroactively affect the outcome of
Plaintiff’s trial, Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendants’ actions call into question
the validity of his conviction. 	Therefore, his action is barred under Heck until his
criminal conviction has been invalidated.
Alternatively, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 	Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims. 	The Fifth Amendment applies only to violations of
due process by the federal government, not state agencies or state employees.
Hamilton’s Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d 644, 649 n.3 (6th Cir. 2007). 	All the
Defendants in this case are court clerks employed by either Michigan’s 63rd District
Court or 17th Circuit Court. 	The Fifth Amendment does not apply to alleged due
process violations by these individuals. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a Fifth
Amendment claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff also asserts Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violations in his
Complaint. ECF No. 1, PageID.3.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
Case 1:26-cv-00114-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 4
of 6

5
States Constitution provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To state
an equal protection claim, a plaintiff “must adequately plead that the government
treated the plaintiff ‘disparately as compared to similarly situated persons and that
such disparate treatment either burdens a fundamental right, targets a suspect class,
or has no rational basis.” Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d
365, 379 (6th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has also recognized what is referred to
as a “class-of-one” equal protection claim in which the plaintiff does not allege
membership in a particular class or group but instead alleges that he “has been
intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no
rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Davis v. Prison Health Services, 679
F.3d 433, 441 (6th Cir. 2012).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege in his Complaint that he was intentionally
treated 	differently 	from 	other 	similarly 	situated 	individuals. 	Plaintiff 	simply
declares that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights
at the end of his Complaint. 	In the undersigned’s opinion, such a conclusory
allegation is plainly insufficient to state an equal protection claim. 	See Steed v.
Harry, No. 1:17-CV-540, 2017 WL 3205764, at *6 (W.D. Mich. July 28, 2017)
(“[V]ague, conclusory allegations of discrimination are not enough to state an equal
protection claim.”); Chapman v. City of Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986) (“It
is not enough for a complaint under § 1983 to contain mere conclusory allegations of
unconstitutional conduct by persons acting under color of state law.”)
Case 1:26-cv-00114-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 5
of 6

6
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim upon which
relief may be granted.
III. Recommendation
Therefore, 	it 	is 	respectfully 	recommended 	that 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	the
Complaint under Heck, or alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Dated: 	February 6, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served on opposing parties
and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report
and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich.
LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of any further
right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:26-cv-00114-PLM-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 6
of 6