Jackson v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFERY JACKSON,

Plaintiff, Hon. Jane M. Beckering

v. Case No. 1:25-cv-210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff initiated this action against the United States of America and “The Judiciary.” (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed as a pauper (ECF No. 4), the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed. ANALYSIS 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 for relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). As the Supreme Court has held, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” If the complaint simply pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between

possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. As the Court further observed: Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. . .Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. . . Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not “show[n]” – “that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted). It is difficult to discern what Plaintiff is attempting to assert in this lawsuit. He identifies himself as a “Moorish American.” He complains that the United States of America does not recognize the Moorish Science Temple of America as a “religious jural society.” He further complains of “Legislative Overreach,” “Enforcement Overreach,” and “Judicial Miscarriage.” Although Plaintiff appears to assert due process violations under the Fifth Amendment, the Court simply cannot discern the 2 nature of Plaintiff’s claims or the facts on which such claims are premised. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against any individual or entity. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that this matter be dismissed for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. For the same reasons the undersigned makes this recommendation, the undersigned finds that an appeal of such would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Accordingly, the undersigned further recommends that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen 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). Respectfully submitted,

Date: February 25, 2025 /s/ Phillip J. Green PHILLIP J. GREEN United States Magistrate Judge