Krusell v. Leirstein et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL JAMES KRUSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN BANKEY, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Case No. 1:25-cv-1268
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 24, 2025, I issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) recommending
that 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint, 	which 	named 	44 	individual 	and 	entity 	Defendants 	and 	was
incomprehensible and failed to set forth a coherent set of facts and claims relating to each
Defendant, be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed
objections (ECF Nos. 7 and 9), which remain pending. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 8.)
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 13), which omitted
nearly all of the original Defendants and added new Defendants. Plaintiff also filed a supplement
to his amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, I consider the amended complaint and
supplement together as the operative pleading in this action and have reviewed it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The amended complaint names eight Defendants: Sheriff Mathew Leirstein, Undersheriff
Rich Bankey, Deputy Tyler Midgett, Deputy Taylor Dornbeir, Deputy Mark Haren, Deputy
Preston Peck, Lt. Deputy Fuller Cowell, David Schulz of the Petosky City Police, and John Doe
Defendants who become known through discovery. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Leirstein,
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 1
of 4

2
acting as a person “hiding behind color of law as Sheriff,” directed “malicious acts and actors”
toward Plaintiff, denying him his rights and disparaging him. (ECF. No. 13 at PageID.57.) Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendant Leirstein committed barratry by “soliciting others to charge
[Plaintiff]” pursuant to “his pecuniary interest in false claims.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Leirstein directed deputies to throw Plaintiff out of the Bear Creek Township Hall during an ice
storm state of emergency. Plaintiff alleges that he was there lawfully and peacefully and had been
invited by emergency relief workers after days without power. (Id.)
Plaintiff also requests habeas relief, claiming that he is being “held unlawfully [and] being
denied all rights and tortured as a political dissident.” (Id. at PageID.13.) Plaintiff continues this
argument in his supplement, in which he claims he has been in custody since July 29 and has not
been permitted to attend multiple court hearings. Plaintiff argues that the state has failed in its
obligation to bring him to trial in accordance with due process. (ECF No. 14 at PageID.60.)
Plaintiff alleges that he was not present for an October 22, 2025 bond and contempt hearing, and
at another hearing, the court arbitrarily appointed Plaintiff counsel. Plaintiff reiterates his request
for release from jail. (Id.)
In spite of his amended complaint, I maintain my prior recommendation that this matter be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable
claim against any Defendant in his amended complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 545 (2007) (holding that a claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true”). Although
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per
curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the lenient treatment pro se plaintiffs receive
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 2
of 4

3
has limits. See, e.g., Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Pro se litigants must
still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their
behalf. See Erwin v. Edwards, 22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s amended
complaint, like his original complaint, fails to state a cognizable claim against any Defendant.
Lastly, Plaintiff may not seek habeas relief in this action. A plaintiff’s request for release
from custody constitutes a challenge to the fact or duration of confinement, which should be
brought as a petition for habeas corpus; it is not the proper subject of a civil rights action brought
pursuant to Section 1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (discussing that the
essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody and
the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody). Thus, Plaintiff's
request for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is not properly asserted in this action. See Adams v.
Morris, 90 F. App’x 856, 858 (6th Cir. 2004) (concluding that dismissal is appropriate where
Section 1983 action seeks equitable relief and challenges fact or duration of confinement).
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. I also recommend that the Court deny Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 8) as moot.
The Court must also decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir.
1997). Good faith is judged objectively, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), and
an appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous, defined as lacking an
arguable basis either in fact or law. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir.
2001). For the same reasons that I recommend dismissal of the action, I discern no good faith basis
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 3
of 4

4
for an appeal and recommend that, should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court assess the
$605.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to Section 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11.
Date: December 11, 2025 	/s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court
within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file
objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 4
of 4