1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

OTIS WILLIAMS, III, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TIMOTHY CRAWFORD ET AL, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-13240 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

DAVID R. GRAND

 / 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

AND MOTION TO DISMISS [24], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS [14] 

 On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint alleging negligence, 

gross negligence, willful misconduct and conspiring to fraudulently transfer assets. 

Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Dismiss 

[24] was filed on July 9, 2015 and Defendant Orlan’s Motion to Dismiss filed on 

April 30, 2015. Plaintiff has not responded to either motion. For the reasons 

stated below, Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Dismissal and Judgment on the 

Pleadings [24] is GRANTED, and Defendant Orlans’ Motion to Dismiss [14] is 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

2:14-cv-13240-AJT-DRG Doc # 27 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 301
2 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 In 2012, the property located at 16400 North Park Drive in Southfield was 

defaulted on by owner Claudia Myree before her death in April 2012. In 

September 2012, JP Morgan Chase initiated foreclosure proceedings on the home 

and in May 2013 the sheriff’s deed became operative and vested all interest in and 

title to the property to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. In June 2013, 

Federal Home Mortgage Corporation sent the occupants of the property a notice to 

vacate the property and Doshia Banks, an occupant, refused to vacate, claiming 

that she rented the property from Myree. After the home was foreclosed, Federal 

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed an action to quiet title, which was granted, 

and an action to recover possession of property, which resulted in a judgment of 

possession in favor of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. These judicial 

decisions are the basis for Williams’ claims against Defendant Judge Johnson who 

presided over those matters in the 46th District Court. 

ANALYSIS

 Defendant Johnson moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) permits sua sponte 

dismissals of suits over which the District Courts do not have subject matter 

2:14-cv-13240-AJT-DRG Doc # 27 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 302
3 

jurisdiction over. See Rauch v. Day and Night Mfg. Corp., 576 F.2d 697, 701 (6th 

Cir.1978). 

Plaintiff’s complaint raises various claims, including negligence, gross 

negligence, willful misconduct, and conspiring to fraudulently transfer assets. 

Plaintiffs cites Oklahoma State law for these claims, so these claims all are framed 

as torts and arise under state law rather than federal law. The complaint states that 

the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, all of 

Plaintiff’s claims arise under state law and do not involve a federal question. The 

complaint does not allege any claims that establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff has not responded to either Motion to Dismiss and has not addressed the 

various deficiencies in his complaint, which also fails to state a claim and never 

names Defendant Orlans at all in any of the allegations. Based on the facts as 

presented in the complaint, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over his claims. 

Accordingly, 

2:14-cv-13240-AJT-DRG Doc # 27 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 303
4 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Dismissal and 

Judgment on the Pleadings [24] is GRANTED, and Defendant Orlans’ Motion to 

Dismiss [14] is DENIED AS MOOT. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: October 15, 2015 Senior United States District Judge 

2:14-cv-13240-AJT-DRG Doc # 27 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 304