Pilot v. State of Michigan

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided November 18, 2016·No. Civil Action No. 2016-1805·Published

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

Pilot v. State of Michigan, (D.D.C. 2016).

Pilot v. State of Michigan (Pilot v. State of Michigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport
193 U.S. 561 (Supreme Court, 1904)
Bell v. Hood
327 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 1946)