Short v. Great Lakes Bay Legal, Attorneys & Counselors

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

QASHONTA HOSOMLA SHORT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-12312 v. Honorable Robert J. White GREAT LAKES BAY LEGAL, ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

QaShonta Hosomla Short commenced this pro se action against, among others, Great Lakes Bay Legal, Attorneys & Counselors and Sadaira Reeves. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). After reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this litigation. To begin with, Short does invoke federal question jurisdiction because none of her allegations “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And federal diversity jurisdiction is also lacking because Great Lakes Bay Legal, Sadaira Reeves, and Short are all Michigan citizens. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). So the suit is not “between . . . [c]itizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Having failed to otherwise show that subject matter jurisdiction exists to proceed with this case, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3). The Court is without jurisdiction when, as here, “the

allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-537 (1974). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

Dated: October 7, 2025 s/ Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge