Tucker v. McClanahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MIA TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN MCCLANAHAN,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-443
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Plaintiff Mia Tucker, proceeding pro se, filed a four-paragraph complaint containing one
allegation of fact. 	She alleges, without further elaboration, that “Defendant, in numerous
occasions, had ex parte communication.” (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
Case 1:26-cv-00443-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 1
of 2

2
of a challenge from any party.”). Here, Plaintiff provides no basis for invoking this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction.
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)). Plaintiff’s
allegations fail to state a viable claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the case.
A judgment will enter in accordance with this Opinion.
Dated: February 23, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00443-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 2
of 2