UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES TIFFANY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12157 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On August 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as Defendants 

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Community Mental Health for Central 

Michigan, and Mid State Health Plan Network Pre-Paid Inpatient Health Plan. See Am. Compl., 

ECF No. 21. Plaintiffs allege that the State of Michigan’s reduction of General Funds allotted to 

healthcare led to Defendants no longer providing certain mental health services and no longer 

paying some of Plaintiffs’ Medicaid deductible on their behalf.1 According to Plaintiffs, the 

implementation of this decision violated their due process rights under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 

U.S. 254 (1970); violated their rights under the Equal Protection clause of the United States 

Constitution; and violated the Michigan Mental Health Code, Mich. Comp. L. § 330.1001ff. Id. 

All three Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a 

claim for which relief may be granted. See Defs.’ Mots. Dismiss, ECF Nos. 27, 31, & 32. The 

parties timely briefed all three motions. 

 1

 The Medicaid deductible is a certain amount of health services that must be paid out-of-pocket by an 

individual before they qualify for Medicaid funding during a specific coverage period. 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 56 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 2564
- 2 - 

 On November 6, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. TRO, ECF No. 41. Plaintiffs argue in their motion that 

Defendants have begun the process of terminating benefits and they seek an immediate order 

from the Court enjoining Defendants from doing so. Initially, Defendants had continued benefits 

in exchange for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ first complaint. Defendants then 

continued benefits indefinitely after Plaintiffs sought a Medicaid review hearing. Defendants 

maintained the position that Plaintiffs were not entitled to a Medicaid review hearing. Now, 

according to Plaintiffs, Defendants have moved forward with terminating benefits. 

On March 8, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their complaint. They argue 

that all but one of Plaintiffs has had the services they sought restored. One Plaintiff has not had 

his services restored but he did receive “a hearing before an administrative law tribunal which 

resulted in an order that is presently pending appeal before the Midland County Circuit Court.” 

Pls.’ Mot. Dismiss 3, ECF No. 52. Plaintiffs now seek dismissal because “Plaintiffs’ have 

essentially received the relief they sought by bringing this action and the matters before the 

Court are now moot.” Id. 

 Plaintiffs seek dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. 

Defendants argue that they will be unfairly prejudiced by a dismissal without prejudice and argue 

that any dismissal should be entered with prejudice. 

Rule 41(a)(2) provides: 

Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 

request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a 

defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s 

motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection 

only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless 

the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without 

prejudice. 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 56 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2565
- 3 - 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Whether dismissal should be granted under the authority of Rule 

41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Grover by Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 

33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994). Rule 41(a)(2) is designed “to protect the nonmovant from 

unfair treatment.” Id. 

A district court should not enter a dismissal without prejudice where it would result in 

“plain legal prejudice” to the nonmovant “as opposed to facing the mere prospect of a second 

lawsuit.” Id. The Sixth Circuit has said a district court should consider the following factors 

when analyzing if a nonmovant will suffer “plain legal prejudice”: 

. . . the defendant’s effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and 

lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient 

explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and whether a motion for summary 

judgment has been filed by the defendant. 

Smith v. Holston Med. Grp., P.C., 595 F. App'x 474, 477 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Grover, 33 

F.3d at 718). 

 All factors favor dismissal without prejudice. First, there has been no preparation for trial. 

Discovery has yet to open since all Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Second, there has been 

no excessive delay or lack of diligence by Plaintiffs. Apart from filing an amended complaint, 

Plaintiffs have taken no actions to delay this action and none of the delay can be characterized as 

excessive. Third, Plaintiffs have sufficiently explained why dismissal is warranted: they have 

received the relief they sought; the case is moot. Lastly, no motions for summary judgment have 

been filed. All Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Their motions were filed as, in the 

alternative, motions for summary judgment. But that does not mean Defendants filed motions for 

summary judgment. To obtain summary judgment Defendants would need to have their motions 

converted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). The motions have not been 

converted. 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 56 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 2566
- 4 - 

 Most importantly, however, is that all Defendants claimed, at one point or another, that 

Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. Defendants Community Mental Health and Mid-State Health 

Network argued in their motions to dismiss that Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. Defendant Michigan 

Department of Health and Human Services argues in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss 

that their complaint should be dismissed as moot. Any dismissal for mootness would necessarily 

be without prejudice. 

 Plaintiffs’ motion will be granted and their complaint will be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 

52, is GRANTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF No. 21, is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Dated: April 5, 2016 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on April 5, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cv-12157-TLL-PTM Doc # 56 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 2567