Sullivan v. Pacheco et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JACK SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARMEN PACHECO, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-291
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Plaintiff Jack Sullivan, proceeding pro se, filed a three-paragraph complaint containing one
allegation of fact. 	He alleges, without further elaboration, that “Defendants delayed the
proceedings, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.)
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” which “possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 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, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[i]f the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 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.”). The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction “when the allegations
Case 1:26-cv-00291-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/02/26 Page 1
of 2

2
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).
In addition, because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court can dismiss the
action if it is “frivolous” or if it “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). To pass this initial screening, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630
F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Here, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint is unsubstantial.
Plaintiff provides no facts upon which to base any sort of claim. The assertion that Defendants
delayed proceedings is vague and conclusory. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the case.
A judgment will enter in accordance with this Opinion.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00291-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/02/26 Page 2
of 2