Pounds v. Michigan, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HERMAN LAMOIT POUNDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1645
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action in December 2025
with the filing of a Complaint against the State of Michigan and several state officials, including
the governor and attorney general. On March 19, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) on grounds that the Complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 	The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16). 	In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo
consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been
made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Defendant State of Michigan
from this lawsuit based on Eleventh Amendment immunity (R&R, ECF No. 15 at PageID.56).
Regarding 	Defendants 	Michigan 	Governor 	Whitmer, 	Michigan 	Attorney 	General 	Nessel,
Case 1:25-cv-01645-JMB-MV ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 1
of 4

2
Michigan Secretary of State Benson, Michigan State Police Colonel Grady II, Kalamazoo
Department of Public Safety Chief Boysen, and the Life EMS Ambulance CEO/registered agent,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that these individual Defendants likewise be dismissed because
Plaintiff does not make any allegations in his Complaint demonstrating how each Defendant was
involved in his alleged Second, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment violations (id. at PageID.56–
59). Indeed, the Magistrate Judge indicates that Plaintiff fails to even mention them by name in
the body of his Complaint (id. at PageID.58). Last, the Magistrate Judge determines that Plaintiff’s
conclusory allegations of harm fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (id. at
PageID.60).
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge “overlooked” material factual
allegations that support his claims (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 16 at PageID.62–64). Alternatively, Plaintiff
requests leave to amend his Complaint to “provide additional facts, clarify the roles of Defendants,
and properly structure the claims” (id. at PageID.64–65).
Plaintiff’s objections, including his request for leave to amend, are denied.
Responding to a perceived deluge of frivolous lawsuits, and, in particular, frivolous
prisoner suits, Congress directed the federal courts to review or “screen” certain complaints sua
sponte and to require dismissal of those suits that failed to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted, that sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief, or that were
frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (screening provision within the in forma
pauperis statute); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (screening of complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress
from a governmental entity or its officers or employees). The Sixth Circuit has clearly held that
district courts may not permit plaintiffs to amend a complaint to avoid dismissal pursuant to these
provisions. Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1015–16 (6th Cir. 1999). See also Moniz v. Hines,
Case 1:25-cv-01645-JMB-MV ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 2
of 4

3
92 F. App’x 208, 212 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[A]s both its spirit and structure make clear, § 1915 does
not afford a district court discretion to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint after its dismissal
under § 1915(e)(2).”).
As the Magistrate Judge described, Plaintiff’s pleading is frivolous and falls far short of
the minimal pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Even if Plaintiff were
permitted to amend his Complaint to avoid dismissal under § 1915, his request to amend is properly
denied where he has not adequately elucidated the proposed grounds for amendment for this
Court’s review. 	Evans v. Pearson Enters., Inc., 434 F.3d 839, 853 (6th Cir. 2006). 	While the
allegations within a pro se complaint are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), pro se litigants must satisfy basic
pleading requirements to invoke federal jurisdiction, Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593–94 (6th
Cir. 1989). 	“[H]anging the legal hat on the correct peg is such a standard, and ‘[l]iberal
construction does not require a court to conjure allegations on a litigant’s behalf.’” Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004).
In sum, the objections are denied, and the Report and Recommendation will be approved
and adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Additionally, a Judgment will be entered. See FED. R.
C IV. P. 58. For the above reasons and because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court
also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not be
taken in good faith. 	See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007).
Case 1:25-cv-01645-JMB-MV ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 3
of 4

4
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 16) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: April 21, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01645-JMB-MV ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 4
of 4