Pilot v. State of Michigan
This text of Pilot v. State of Michigan (Pilot v. State of Michigan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Michael Charles Pilot,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 16-1805 (RDM)
State of Michigan, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the Court on petitioner Michael Charles Pilot’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, Dkt. 1, and motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, Dkt. 3. As
an initial matter, however, the Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction. See, e.g., Doe
ex rel. Fein v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861, 871 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“A claim that the court
lacks jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution may not be waived, since the jurisdiction
at issue goes to the court’s power to resolve a case, and the court is obliged to address is sua
sponte.”) A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a suit when the claims at issue are “wholly
insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946); Agudas Chasidei
Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Federation, 528 F.3d 934, 940 (D.C. Cir. 2008). As explained in an
apparently similar case that petitioner brought in the federal District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan last year, “[f]ederal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise
within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and insubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of
merit.’” Pilot v. Snyder, No. 15-10961, slip op. at 5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2015) (quoting
Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904)). The Court has carefully reviewed petitioner’s extensive filings in this case, and
concludes—as did the district court in Pilot v. Snyder, No. 15-10961, slip op. at 5—that they do
not present a coherent claim for relief sufficient to sustain federal jurisdiction under the rule
announced in Bell v. Hood. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this case sua sponte pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge
Date: November 18, 2016
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pilot v. State of Michigan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pilot-v-state-of-michigan-dcd-2016.