Boyle v. Iron County Friend of the Court et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SHANNON T. BOYLE, 	Case No. 	2:25-cv-00162
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
IRON COUNTY FRIEND
OF THE COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) addresses the complaint filed by
Shannon T. Boyle. 	Boyle filed a complaint naming the following Defendants: Iron
County Friend of the Court and Agent Tina Sundelius. 1 	James Stevens is also
named as a Plaintiff in the complaint. 	The allegations asserted in the complaint
involve James Stevens. 	The entire “Statement of Claim” section is shown below:
1 	Boyle has filed four other cases that fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction and/or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	See Boyle
v. CoVantage Credit Union, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-158-PLM; Boyle v. State of
Michigan Child Protective Services, et al., W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-161-RJJ;
Boyle v. United States Attorney General, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-173-PLM; Boyle
v. Peretto, W.D. Mich. Case No. 2:25-cv-223-JMB.
Case 2:25-cv-00162-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 1
of 5

2
(ECF No. 1, PageID.4.)
There are no factual allegations that pertain to Plaintiff Boyle. 	Accordingly,
it is respectfully recommended that the Court dismiss this case due to lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Boyle has failed to assert an actionable claim and Stevens
has not signed the complaint.
“As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts may exercise only those powers
authorized by the Constitution and statute.” 	Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th
Cir. 2001). 	Federal courts have an on-going obligation to examine whether they
have subject-matter jurisdiction over an action and may raise the issue sua sponte.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94 (2010); Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,
506 (2006). 	This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over actions that
involve “federal questions” that arise under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties
of the United States. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	Ultimately, the plaintiff bears the burden
of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction. 	Peterson v. City of Grand Rapids,
182 F. Supp. 3d 750, 753 (W.D. Mich. 2016) (citing RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse
Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir.1996)).
Shannon Boyle has asserted no claims involving wrongs against him in his
complaint. 	His claims are on behalf of James Stevens, who has not signed the
Case 2:25-cv-00162-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 2
of 5

3
complaint. 	Boyle is not an attorney and, as a pro se litigant, he cannot represent
Stevens. 	See Martin v. Fennville Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 1:21-CV-202, 2021 WL
5579204, at *1 (W.D. Mich. May 4, 2021) (“As a non-attorney, pro se plaintiff . . .
cannot represent another pro se plaintiff”). 	Further, if Boyle filed a motion on behalf
of Stevens, Plaintiff Boyle would be in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which provides,
with emphasis added, that “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead
and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,
respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” 	Finally, Stevens
must sign his own pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 	On this basis alone,
the case should be dismissed.
Further, Boyle has not alleged facts showing that he has standing to redress
Steven’s claim, assuming one exists. 	For a plaintiff to invoke federal jurisdiction to
bring suit in the federal courts, he must demonstrate standing. 	Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561–62 (1992); Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir.
2004). 	Standing is central to the “case-or-controversy” requirement associated with
Article III of the Constitution. 	Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).
Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2)
that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that the
injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. 	Id. 	An injury in fact is a
harm 	suffered 	by 	a 	plaintiff 	that 	(1) 	concrete 	and 	particularized 	and 	(2) 	not
conjectural or hypothetical. 	Nader v. Blackwell, 545 F.3d 459, 471 (6th Cir. 2008).
Case 2:25-cv-00162-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 3
of 5

4
Traceability requires “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of” and that the conduct not be a result of “the independent action of some
third party.” 	Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. 	(internal quotation marks omitted). 	And for
an injury to be redressable, it must be “likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that
the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 	Id. at 561 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Boyle’s complaint identifies no claim that pertains to him. 	Boyle has failed to
identify an injury in fact. 	The asserted cause of action, if one exists, belongs to
Stevens, and because Boyle is not an attorney, he cannot represent Stevens’s
interests in this case.
In addition, as alleged, the complaint fails to assert a federal cause of action.
The complaint merely states that the “Friend of Court is violating all kinds of federal
laws.” 	(ECF No. 1, PageID.3.) 	The complaint does not come close to what is
required to state a federal cause of action that can invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
II. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court dismiss this case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
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
Case 2:25-cv-00162-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 4
of 5

5
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).
Dated: 	November 25, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00162-JMB-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/25/25 Page 5
of 5