UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARTIN ANTONIO SOLOMON,
Plaintiff, Case No. 26-cv-12509 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v.
CHANCEY, et al.,
Defendants, __________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 3) AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND TO FILE EXCESS PAGES (ECF No. 4)
Plaintiff Martin A. Solomon is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On July 22, 2026, Solmon filed a pro se civil-rights Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Solomon’s Complaint is difficult to follow. It is 273 pages long and includes claims against sixty different Defendants arising out of Solomon’s incarceration in at least four different prisons. (See id.) Solomon is “a prolific litigator in federal court” who has had several similar actions dismissed for failing to state cognizable claims and/or failing to comply with federal pleading requirements. Solomon v. Clark, No. 25-cv- 13833, 2026 WL 183612, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2026) (Drain, J.) (collecting cases). See also Solomon v. Washington, No. 26-cv-11136, 2026 WL 1121929 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2026) (Murphy, C.J.); Solomon v. Henry Ford Allegiance Health Sys., No. 20-cv-10458, 2021 WL 1736998 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2021) (Levy, J.).
Solomon has also repeatedly been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the basis that he is a “three-striker” who has filed at least three prior civil actions that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See, e.g., Solomon v. Correct Care Sols., No. 19-cv-12062 (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2019); Solomon v. Olivette Products, LLC, No. 13-cv-13666, 2013 WL 5671327 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2013). In addition to filing his Complaint, Solomon has also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (See App., ECF No. 2.) Where, as here, a party applies to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court has an obligation to screen the party’s Complaint and dismiss it prior to service on the Defendants if it (i) asserts frivolous
or malicious claims, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). While the Court must liberally construe documents filed by pro
se plaintiffs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint nonetheless “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). See also Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The Court has conducted an initial review of Solomon’s Complaint and concludes that, as currently pleaded, many, if not all, of Solomon’s claims are subject
to summary dismissal. Solomon’s Complaint, among other things, fails to state viable claims for the following reasons: The Complaint does not allow the Court or the Defendants to determine
the specific claims that Solomon is raising and/or which of the named Defendants are specifically responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Solomon’s lengthy and confusing Complaint therefore fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)’s requirement
that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). See also Payne v. Secretary of Treas., 73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of
Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and explaining that “[n]either this court nor the district court is required to create Payne’s claim for her”); Solomon brings claims arising out of his incarceration at the Baraga
and Chippewa Correctional Facilities. Both of those institutions are located in the Western District of Michigan. Thus, those claims appear to be filed in the wrong venue. See Bunting ex rel. Gray v. Gray, 2 F.
App’x 443, 448 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)); Solomon has sued at least two private hospitals and several private doctors. But Section 1983 claims may only be brought against state
actors, and private parties like a hospital or its employees do not become state actors under Section 1983 simply because they provided medical treatment to a prisoner. See Phillips v. Tangilag, 14 F.4th 524,
533 (6th Cir. 2021); The Complaint appears to improperly join unrelated claims and/or Defendants in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Thus, severance of at least some of Solomon’s claims and/or Defendants may
be required. See Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App’x 436, 437-38 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of claims brought by plaintiff where plaintiff’s complaint “aver[red] multiple constitutional violations that
occurred over a span of seven years” that arose “out of different transactions and occurrences”); Fields v. Martin, No. 13-cv-10166, 2013 WL 5182182, at * 4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2013) (adopting recommendation to sever claims where claims “involve[d] distinct
factual scenarios, different time periods and different legal standards”) (quoting Prince v. Elum, No. 12-cv-15526, pp. 8-9 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2013)); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining
that district court should have severed prisoner’s claims in case where prisoner brought “50 distinct claims” against 24 different defendants); and
Solomon has identified several Defendants only by their last names. That is insufficient information for this Court to order the United States Marshal to effectuate service on these Defendants even if the Court
were to determine that Solomon’s Complaint survived initial screening. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that several, if not all, of Solomon’s claims may not survive initial screening and/or may need to be severed. However, in lieu of dismissal, the Court will provide Solomon one final opportunity
to plead viable claims. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Solomon to file a First Amended Complaint by no later than September 28, 2026. In the First Amended Complaint, Solomon shall either (1) name a single Defendant, and if he names a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARTIN ANTONIO SOLOMON,
Plaintiff, Case No. 26-cv-12509 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v.
CHANCEY, et al.,
Defendants, __________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 3) AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE AND TO FILE EXCESS PAGES (ECF No. 4)
Plaintiff Martin A. Solomon is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On July 22, 2026, Solmon filed a pro se civil-rights Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Solomon’s Complaint is difficult to follow. It is 273 pages long and includes claims against sixty different Defendants arising out of Solomon’s incarceration in at least four different prisons. (See id.) Solomon is “a prolific litigator in federal court” who has had several similar actions dismissed for failing to state cognizable claims and/or failing to comply with federal pleading requirements. Solomon v. Clark, No. 25-cv- 13833, 2026 WL 183612, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2026) (Drain, J.) (collecting cases). See also Solomon v. Washington, No. 26-cv-11136, 2026 WL 1121929 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 24, 2026) (Murphy, C.J.); Solomon v. Henry Ford Allegiance Health Sys., No. 20-cv-10458, 2021 WL 1736998 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2021) (Levy, J.).
Solomon has also repeatedly been denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the basis that he is a “three-striker” who has filed at least three prior civil actions that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See, e.g., Solomon v. Correct Care Sols., No. 19-cv-12062 (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2019); Solomon v. Olivette Products, LLC, No. 13-cv-13666, 2013 WL 5671327 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2013). In addition to filing his Complaint, Solomon has also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. (See App., ECF No. 2.) Where, as here, a party applies to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court has an obligation to screen the party’s Complaint and dismiss it prior to service on the Defendants if it (i) asserts frivolous
or malicious claims, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). While the Court must liberally construe documents filed by pro
se plaintiffs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), a complaint nonetheless “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). See also Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The Court has conducted an initial review of Solomon’s Complaint and concludes that, as currently pleaded, many, if not all, of Solomon’s claims are subject
to summary dismissal. Solomon’s Complaint, among other things, fails to state viable claims for the following reasons: The Complaint does not allow the Court or the Defendants to determine
the specific claims that Solomon is raising and/or which of the named Defendants are specifically responsible for the alleged constitutional violations. Solomon’s lengthy and confusing Complaint therefore fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)’s requirement
that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). See also Payne v. Secretary of Treas., 73 F. App’x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of
Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and explaining that “[n]either this court nor the district court is required to create Payne’s claim for her”); Solomon brings claims arising out of his incarceration at the Baraga
and Chippewa Correctional Facilities. Both of those institutions are located in the Western District of Michigan. Thus, those claims appear to be filed in the wrong venue. See Bunting ex rel. Gray v. Gray, 2 F.
App’x 443, 448 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)); Solomon has sued at least two private hospitals and several private doctors. But Section 1983 claims may only be brought against state
actors, and private parties like a hospital or its employees do not become state actors under Section 1983 simply because they provided medical treatment to a prisoner. See Phillips v. Tangilag, 14 F.4th 524,
533 (6th Cir. 2021); The Complaint appears to improperly join unrelated claims and/or Defendants in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Thus, severance of at least some of Solomon’s claims and/or Defendants may
be required. See Pruden v. SCI Camp Hill, 252 F. App’x 436, 437-38 (3d Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of claims brought by plaintiff where plaintiff’s complaint “aver[red] multiple constitutional violations that
occurred over a span of seven years” that arose “out of different transactions and occurrences”); Fields v. Martin, No. 13-cv-10166, 2013 WL 5182182, at * 4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2013) (adopting recommendation to sever claims where claims “involve[d] distinct
factual scenarios, different time periods and different legal standards”) (quoting Prince v. Elum, No. 12-cv-15526, pp. 8-9 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 14, 2013)); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining
that district court should have severed prisoner’s claims in case where prisoner brought “50 distinct claims” against 24 different defendants); and
Solomon has identified several Defendants only by their last names. That is insufficient information for this Court to order the United States Marshal to effectuate service on these Defendants even if the Court
were to determine that Solomon’s Complaint survived initial screening. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that several, if not all, of Solomon’s claims may not survive initial screening and/or may need to be severed. However, in lieu of dismissal, the Court will provide Solomon one final opportunity
to plead viable claims. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Solomon to file a First Amended Complaint by no later than September 28, 2026. In the First Amended Complaint, Solomon shall either (1) name a single Defendant, and if he names a
single Defendant, he may bring all of the claims he may have against that single Defendant; or (2) if Solomon wishes to bring claims against multiple Defendants, he shall limit his claims in the First Amended Complaint to claims that arose out of the same transaction or occurrence. He shall not join together unrelated claims against
unrelated Defendants. Moreover, in the First Amended Complaint, Solomon shall set out his factual allegations in individually numbered paragraphs in double spaced text (or, if handwritten, sufficiently spaced). Each claim shall be listed separately.
Under each listed claim, Solomon shall explain (1) what right was violated, (2) the legal basis for his claim, (3) which Defendant or Defendants were involved in the alleged violation of that right; (4) what each Defendant did to violate his rights, and
(5) the date or approximate date of the alleged violation. The Court encourages Solomon to write short, clear sentences and, if possible, to use punctuation when explaining his claims.
The Court does not anticipate allowing Solomon another opportunity to amend to add factual allegations that he could now include in a First Amended Complaint. Simply put, this is Solomon’s opportunity to clearly and separately allege any and all facts, currently known to him, that may support his claims. In
addition, if Solomon believes that he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis because he is in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, he shall include facts to support that assertion in his First Amended Complaint. If Solomon fails to
file a First Amended Complaint as set forth above, the Court will dismiss this action. Finally, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Solomon’s pending motions in this case for a preliminary injunction and to expedite proceedings. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 3, 4.) Solomon may re-file those motions if Solomon files a First
Amended Complaint and if the Court concludes that that pleading survives initial screening. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN Dated: July 31, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 31, 2026, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126