Sowders v. Goldberg

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-11773
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM DENNIS SOWDERS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-11773 v. Honorable Robert J. White RYAN GOLDBERG,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

William Sowders commenced this pro se breach of fiduciary duty action against FDCU Financial’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Ryan Goldberg. Sowders purports to be a “michiganian national and heir by right and bloodline to the posterity of the state of Michigan and these United States of America.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.7). After reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this litigation. To begin with, Sowders cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction because none of his allegations “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. While he alleges the “[d]estruction of core unalienable rights” under the United States and Michigan Constitutions, the complaint does explain what provisions of the federal constitution have been violated or how they have been violated. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4). Nor does Sowders sufficiently establish

how any purported federal constitutional violation injured him. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Federal diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. Because Sowders and Goldberg

are both Michigan citizens 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: July 7, 2025 s/ Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge