Adams v. Yost

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRANDON G. ADAMS, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-13134 v. Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith DAVE YOST, et al, Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Brandon G. Adams filed this case on November 25, 2024 (Dkt. 1). He failed to pay the filing fee after he was ordered to do so no later than December 9, 2024. See Notice of Filing Fee Not Paid at PageID.11 (Dkt. 3). That deadline has long passed and Plaintiff has not either paid the fee or sought in forma pauperis status. Additionally, upon review of the complaint, Plaintiff’s claim is nonsensical and, therefore, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction to hear his claim. See Compl. at PageID.4–6 (Dkt. 1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) states: “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that this Court has federal question jurisdiction, see id. at PageID.3– 4, and then lists, without any further explanation: “Fifth, Seventh, Fourteenth Amendment, Article VI Supreme Law Clause 2 Supremacy Clause, Rule 21. Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs, Rule 46. Objecting to a Ruling or Order, Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967 (5th 1 Cir. 1983) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)[.]” Id. at PageID.4 (Dkt. 1). Merely listing Constitutional Amendments and names of cases does not confer federal question jurisdiction. Nor does Plaintiff’s statement of claim, which appears to be a list of documents of some sort, provide any more context. Id. at PageID.5–6 (Dkt. 1). Moreover, and without first obtaining leave to do so, Plaintiff has filed numerous documents and notices on the docket in this case. See Docket (Dkts.5–8, 9–16, 19–24). None of these filings could be reasonably construed as a clarification of Plaintiff’s claim or Court’s jurisdiction to hear this case. For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s case with prejudice. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2025 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge 2