Wilson v. Livingston et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
TRISHA MCGRATH WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID LIVINGSTON, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 2:25-cv-59
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
Plaintiff Trisha Wilson brings this lawsuit against Defendants David Livingston, Brandon
Rickard, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), and Adult
Protective Services (APS).1 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Ray Kent’s report and
recommendation (R&R) that the Court dismiss the case for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 33).
No party has filed objections to the R&R, and the deadline for doing so has expired.
Defendants Livingston, APS, and the MDHHS raise a sovereign immunity defense in their
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28), which the R&R does not address. But because “‘the Eleventh
Amendment is a true jurisdictional bar,’ Defendants’ entitlement to sovereign immunity ‘must be
decided before the merits.’” Doe v. DeWine, 910 F.3d 842, 848 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Russell
v. Lundergan-Grimes, 784 F.3d 1037, 1046 (6th Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the Court must evaluate
whether Plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity—and thus whether the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction—before it can decide whether Plaintiff has stated a claim.
1 Plaintiff appears to have also intended to sue an additional defendant, named as “INSURANCE Co. Liability
Indemnity for MI. Doe Co.” (ECF No. 1-1, PageID.6.) Plaintiff has neither properly identified this defendant nor
provided proof that she has served them. Even if the complaint is interpreted as attempting to state a claim against
this defendant, it fails to do so because it does not contain any identifiable allegations about their conduct.
Case 2:25-cv-00059-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 1
of 3

2
“The Eleventh Amendment ‘deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction when a
citizen sues his own State unless the State waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that
sovereign immunity.’” Id. (quoting Russell, 784 F.3d at 1046). The MDHHS and APS assert that
they have sovereign immunity because they are agencies of the state of Michigan. Sovereign
immunity “applies to state agencies or departments, such as . . . [the] MDHHS.” Boler v. Earley,
865 F.3d 391, 410 (6th Cir. 2017). And because APS is a department of the MDHHS, see In re
Guardianship of GM, No. 373743, 2025 WL 2602472, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2025), it is
also entitled to sovereign immunity. Plaintiff does not assert that APS or the MDHHS have waived
their sovereign immunity, and it does not appear that any other exception to sovereign immunity
applies here. Thus, the Court will dismiss the claims against APS and the MDHHS for lack of
jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Livingston also asserts that, as a state officer, he
possesses sovereign immunity. But Livingston cannot raise a sovereign immunity defense to any
claims against him in his personal capacity. See Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 163 (2017)
(“[S]overeign immunity ‘does not erect a barrier against suits to impose individual and personal
liability.’” (quoting Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30–31 (1991))).
As to Livingston and Rickard, the magistrate judge reasoned that Plaintiff’s failure to
respond to their motions to dismiss was a sufficient basis for dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.
However, a court may not dismiss a “complaint solely for [Plaintiff’s] failure to respond to
defendants’ motion to dismiss.” Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 455 (6th Cir. 1991). Regardless,
the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable
federal claim against Livingston or Rickard. Furthermore, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal
claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply, 465 F.3d 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2006).
Case 2:25-cv-00059-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 33) is APPROVED IN PART and
REJECTED IN PART as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 11, 28) are
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against APS and the MDHHS are
DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s federal claims against Livingston and
Rickard are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Livingston and
Rickard are DISMISSED because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
them.
A judgment will enter in accordance with this Order.
Dated: February 24, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00059-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 3
of 3