Palmer v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Keiara Palmer,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Case No. 25-cv-11109
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff Keiara Palmer brings this action against Defendant
United States. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff is self-represented. On
November 4, 2025, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11.) The order noted that “[t]he information in
Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient to show that subject matter
jurisdiction exists.” (Id. at PageID.28.) The order required Plaintiff “to
show cause, in writing, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of
Case 5:25-cv-11109-JEL-APP ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
subject matter jurisdiction.” (Id. at PageID.31.) The order specified that
the deadline for Plaintiff to respond was December 4, 2025. (Id.)
On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff responded to the Court’s show
cause order. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff submitted a thoughtful letter about
the loss of her husband due to Covid. The letter, however, does not
demonstrate that the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. As a result, Plaintiff’s letter does not satisfy the
show cause order.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3), “[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). The “objection
that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised
by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the
litigation, even after trial and entry of judgment.” Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006); see also Prime Rate Premium Finance
Corp., Inc. v. Larson, 930 F.3d 759, 764–65 (6th Cir. 2019); Beanstalk
Innovation, Inc. v. SRG Tech., LLC, 823 F. App’x 404, 408 (6th Cir.
2020). In the Sixth Circuit, “a dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction does not operate as an adjudication on the merits for
Case 5:25-cv-11109-JEL-APP ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
preclusive purposes.” Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d 514, 522 (6th Cir.
2004). Instead, when a dismissal is “jurisdictional in nature,” it is
“without prejudice.” Id. at 523.
As set forth in the Court’s order to show cause entered on
November 4, 2025, the information in Plaintiff’s complaint does not
establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff
does not show otherwise in her response to the show cause order. (ECF
No. 13.) Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 5, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:25-cv-11109-JEL-APP ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3