Alexander v. Hill-Kearse et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-271
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
OPINION
Plaintiff Joseph Alexander, proceeding pro se, filed a three-paragraph complaint containing
one allegation of fact. He alleges, without further elaboration, that “Defendants conspired together
and intentionally delayed the calendar of motions, in violation of due process.” 	(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-00271-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/02/26 Page 1
of 2

2
of a challenge from any party.”). The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction “when the allegations
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
conspired to delay a calendar of motions 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-00271-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/02/26 Page 2
of 2