Thomas v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Case 2:23-cv-10112-NGE-KGA ECF No. 4, PageID.713 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ELAINA THOMAS,
Plaintiff,

No. 23-10112

v.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
The matter is before the Court on its own review of Plaintiff Elaina Thomas’ pro
se complaint filed against the State of Michigan and Michigan’s Department of Health
and Human Services and Children’s Protective Services. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has
also filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. (ECF No. 2.)
Plaintiff appears to be challenging the termination of her parental rights and seeking the
return of her children. This is not the first time Plaintiff has filed this type of complaint.
(See, e.g., Case No. 14-mc-50840.) In fact, Plaintiff has a long history of filing lawsuits
in this district, “all of which have been dismissed as frivolous and/or for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.” See Thomas v. Michigan, No. 15-cv-11165, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
57323, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2015) (listing cases).

The Court similarly lacks

jurisdiction over the present lawsuit.1 See Bodell v. McDonald, 4 F. App’x 276, 279 (6th
Cir. 2001) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim in federal court challenging the

1

“[F]ederal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in
regard to every case and may raise the issue sua sponte.” Answers in Genesis of Ky.,
Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009).
1 

Case 2:23-cv-10112-NGE-KGA ECF No. 4, PageID.714 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 2

outcome of termination proceedings in state court). Moreover, Plaintiff is enjoined from
filing any correspondence or pleadings in this Court without first obtaining permission
from the Court and providing proof of that permission to the Clerk of the Court. See
Thomas v. Bailey, No. 12-cv-14558, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190920, at *3 (E.D. Mich.
Nov. 7, 2012) (Friedman, J.). Plaintiff did not obtain permission to file her complaint.
Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED.

IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or
costs is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: January 18, 2023
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on January 18, 2023, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Case Manager

2