-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EMMANUEL MARRIED a/k/a 

EMMANUEL WYLIE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 

v. 

 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

DAVID PIERSON, and 

BAQIYA WYLIE, 

 

 Defendants. 

 / 

Case No. 15-mc-50552 

 Honorable Gershwin A. Drain 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

Emmanuel Married, a/k/a Emmanuel Wylie (“Plaintiff”),1

 filed the instant Complaint 

against the People of the State of Michigan, David Pierson, and Baqiya Wylie (“Defendants”) on 

April 17, 2015. See Dkt. No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims to have “obtained personal 

jurisdiction over [“The People of the State of Michigan & it’s employee’s”] due to the National 

Labor Board Relations Act and Uniform Arbitration Act[.]” Id. at ¶ 1. Additionally, Plaintiff 

asserts that “Baqiya Wylie and David Pierson became defendants only to receive withdrawal of 

court credit deposit from court ordered subpoena providing reasonable expenses for any secured 

interest against plaintiff’s privilege to redeem and travel in 2004 Chevrolet VIN 

1G1ZS52F64F151257.” Id. at ¶ 3. Apparently, Plaintiff alleges that he “has mortgagor’s equity 

of redemption for 2004 Chevrolet VIN 1G1ZS52F64F151257 and pay to the order of Baqiya 

Wylie $4,000.00USD for the purchase and redemption of vehicle.” Id. at ¶ 2. 

 

1

 The Court notes that this is a pro se complaint filed and signed by “Emmanuel Wylie,” yet the Plaintiff appears to 

go by the name “Emmanuel Married.” 

2:15-mc-50552-GAD-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 8
-2- 

Generally, courts may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has been 

paid unless the court gives the plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint. See Tingler v. 

Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111–12 (6th Cir. 1983). However, a court may dismiss a complaint 

even when a filing fee has been paid “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when 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 (6thCir. 1999); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 327 n.6, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) (“A patently insubstantial 

complaint may be dismissed, for example, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).”). 

The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they have only such jurisdiction as is 

defined by Article III of the United States Constitution and granted by Congress. See Kokkonen 

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994); 

Fisher v. Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). As provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, 

federal courts have jurisdiction (1) over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or 

treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“federal question jurisdiction”), and (2) over civil 

actions between completely diverse parties where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“diversity jurisdiction”). Federal courts have a duty to 

consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case and may raise the issue sua 

sponte. See In re Lewis, 398 F.3d 735, 739 (6th Cir. 2005). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(h)(3) requires the Court to dismiss an action if, at any time, it determines it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

2:15-mc-50552-GAD-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 9
-3- 

Here, Plaintiff fails to explain how he has “obtained personal jurisdiction” over “The 

People of the State of Michigan & it’s employee’s” pursuant the National Labor Relations Act of 

1935 (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.—a statute that deals with the rights of employees and is 

the only federal statute mentioned by Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff does not state a cause of 

action involving diverse parties that exceeds $75,000. Instead, Plaintiff advances assertions in his 

Complaint that are confusing and difficult to understand, and attaches various unrelated exhibits 

regarding conveyances of mineral rights; miscellaneous trustee and warranty deeds; and a UCC 

Financing Statement. 

 In sum, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks merit. This Court has neither federal question nor 

diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff neither raises a federal cause of action nor asserts a state 

cause of action involving diverse parties that exceeds $75,000. Because this court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 29, 2015 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 United States District Court Judge

2:15-mc-50552-GAD-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 04/29/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 10