Gant v. Berens

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ERIC D. GANT, 	Case No. 1:26-cv-01823
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
SALLY J. BERENS,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Eric D. Grant filed this delusional, frivolous, and malicious
lawsuit naming U.S. Magistrate Judge Berens as the Defendant. ECF No. 1. 	Gant
says that on June 1, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Berens issued a Report and
Recommendation to dismiss one of his lawsuits as frivolous. 	He sues Judge Berens
because he has now anointed himself under the Michigan Constitution as “King of
the state of Michigan, the United States, and the World.” 	Id., PageID.1. 	As King,
Plaintiff has decided that the U.S. Magistrate could not make a recommendation
against his interest.1 Plaintiff says that his complaint “does not arise under the laws
of the United States, or treaties of the United States.” Id., PageID.3.
II. Analysis
This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over actions that involve
1 	Gant makes this threat in his pleading by writing that “[t]he penalty for
violating this law is a penalty of death or any other punishment the King [Gant]
determines.” ECF No. 1, PageID.2.
Case 1:26-cv-01823-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 1
of 5

2
“federal questions” that arise under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties of the
United States. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	Plaintiff admits that his lawsuit does not arise
under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties, but is based upon something that he
made up himself, as “King Eric.” Id., PageID.2. For that reason, Plaintiff’s complaint
should be dismissed.2 But the Court should not stop there.
III. Sanctions
Here, Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. 	ECF No. 2.
Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege that the Court may grant to indigent
litigants. 	Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998). 	Unfortunately,
sometimes a litigant abuses the privilege by repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits.
Mathis v. U.S. Marshal Service, No. 1:20-cv-711, 2020 WL 5943010, *1 (W.D. Mich.
Oct. 7, 2020). The Court explained:
Having considered the submissions in these cases, the Court concludes
that continuing to allow Plaintiff the privilege of proceeding in forma
pauperis in future lawsuits does not promote the use of Court resources
in the interest of justice. See generally In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180
(1989); Maxberry v. S.E.C., 879 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1989). The Sixth
Circuit has repeatedly recognized that a district court may properly
deny a vexatious litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis where
a litigant has demonstrated a “history of unsubstantial and vexatious
litigation [amounting to] an abuse of the permission granted to him to
2 	In 	addition, Judges are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for actions
taken within a judge’s judicial authority. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9–10 (1991)
(“[I]t is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of
justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free
to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to
himself.”) (internal quotations omitted). There is no doubt that the issuance of an R.
& R. was within Magistrate Judge Berens’s judicial authority entitling Judge Berens
to absolute judicial immunity. Gant has recourse – he could have filed objections to
the R. & R. and/or appeal the ultimate decision – but he cannot sue the judge who
recommended that his case be dismissed.
Case 1:26-cv-01823-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 2
of 5

3
proceed as a pauper in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” Atchison
v. Farrell, 230 F.3d 1357, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 15, 2000) (quoting
Maxberry, 879 F.2d at 224). See, e.g., Boles v. Matthews, 173 F.3d 854,
at *3 (6th Cir. 1999); Robinson v. Giavasis, 110 F.3d 64 (6th Cir. 1997);
Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 260-61 (6th Cir. 1992). As set forth more
fully in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has a demonstrated
history of filing unsubstantial and vexatious litigation, justifying this
prospective restriction. Accordingly, in the future, Plaintiff will not be
permitted to file another action without payment of the full filing fee.
Id.
Gant has filed the following lawsuits in this Court:
 	Gant v. United States of America, 1:24-cv-754 (W.D. Mich., July 25, 2024),
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (August 19, 2024);
 	Gant v. Nelnet, 1:25-cv-339 (W.D. Mich., March 27, 2025), dismissed as
frivolous (April 14, 2025);
 	Gant v. Orbit Leasing, 1:25-cv-340 (W.D. Mich., March 27, 2025), dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction (April 16, 2025);
 	Gant v. United States Bankruptcy Court, 1:25-cv-397 (W.D. Mich., April 15,
2025), dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (May 6, 2025);
 	Gant v. Standard Consumer, 1:25-cv-398 (W.D. Mich., April 10, 2025),
dismissed as frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction (June 12, 2025);
 	Gant v. Michigan Dept. of Transportation, 1:26-cv-1671 (W.D. Mich., May
22, 2026), R. & R. entered to dismiss as frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction;
and
 	Gant v. State of Michigan, 1:25-cv-1080 (W.D. Mich., September 12, 2025),
dismissed as frivolous (September 22, 2025) (There the Court stated: “The
Case 1:26-cv-01823-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 3
of 5

4
Court hereby notifies Gant that filing of further frivolous actions
may result in the revocation of his ability to proceed in forma
pauperis in this Court.”)
In the opinion of the undersigned, Gant has similarly abused the privilege of
proceeding in forma pauperis by repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits, and by filing this
lawsuit for an improper purpose, despite being warned by the Court that future
frivolous filings will result in revocation of his in forma pauperis status.3 	This case
shows that Gant does not take litigation in this Court seriously. 	For this reason, and
the 	fact 	that 	he 	has 	repeatedly 	filed 	baseless 	lawsuits 	in 	this 	Court, 	it 	is
recommended that the Court restrict Gant’s filing privileges in this Court.
IV. Recommendation
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court dismiss
the complaint as frivolous and due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is further recommended that the Court prohibit Gant from filing a lawsuit
in this Court without the prepayment of the filing fee, unless Gant obtains a signature
from a licensed attorney admitted to the Western District of Michigan certifying that
Gant’s complaint is not frivolous, malicious, or brought for an improper purpose.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
3 	The Court could enter a show cause order requiring Plaintiff to show cause
why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against him for violating Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11.
Case 1:26-cv-01823-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 4
of 5

5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	June 16, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01823-JMB-MV ECF No. 5, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/16/26 Page 5
of 5