UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSHUA DERBY, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 25-cv-12091 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

JOSHUA M. FARRELL,

Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) GRANTING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF Nos. 5, 6), AND (2) SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION On July 10, 2025, Plaintiffs Joshua Derby and Alyssia Warren filed this action against a state court judge. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Derby and Warren also filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Applications, ECF Nos. 5, 6.) The Court has reviewed the Complaint and applications. The applications to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED. However, the Court will summarily dismiss the Complaint on the basis that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a “judicial misconduct complaint” that is not appropriate for consideration in this Court. Therefore, for the reasons explained below, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court is required to screen all complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis and dismiss those that (i) are frivolous or malicious, (ii) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and/or (iii) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

(e)(2). While the

Court is obligated to liberally construe documents filed by pro se plaintiffs, see Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), a complaint must still plead sufficient specific factual allegations, and not just legal conclusions, in support of each claim.

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

, 678–679 (2009); see also Hill v. Lappin,

, 470–471 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the dismissal standard of Iqbal applies to a Court's review of a complaint under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim). The Court will therefore dismiss a complaint that does not state a “plausible

claim for relief.” Iqbal,

. The Court concludes that it must dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the basis that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. First, Plaintiffs

contend that the state court judge committed judicial misconduct in a number of ways. For example, Plaintiffs argue that he issued an “Improper Default Judgment Despite Federal Case Notice,” that he “Fail[ed] to Acknowledge Filed Motions,” “Intentional[ly] Misdirect[ed] . . . Court Mail,” “modified and processed” “[c]ourt

records and hearing schedules. . . without notice,” and “act[ed] without jurisdiction[.]” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Plaintiffs labeled their Complaint a “Formal Complaint of Judicial Misconduct” and/or an “Official Judicial Misconduct

Complaint.” (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiffs addressed the Complaint to the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) And the relief Plaintiffs seek appears to be more properly directed toward that body. (See

PageID.3, 5-6.) Second, Plaintiffs claim that their Complaint arises under

(see id.), which permits filing a complaint against a judge with the court of appeals for

the circuit. That section defines “judge” as a “circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge[.]”

(a), (d). Thus, any claims brought under this statute must be filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and this statute does not appear to contemplate complaints made

against state court judges. See

Third, Plaintiffs appear to bring claims asserting a number of alleged violations of Michigan law. More specifically, Plaintiffs assert (1) violations of

Michigan Court Rules contained in the section covering the “Attorney Grievance Commission” and “Attorney Discipline Board” (see Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.5, citing Mich. Ct. R. 9.104); (2) rules for the clerk’s issuance of summonses and service of process (id., citing Mich. Ct. R. 2.102, 2.105); and (3) a Michigan law

permitting state courts to hold “attorneys, counselors, clerks, registers, coroners, and all other persons in any manner elected or appointed to perform any judicial or ministerial services” in contempt of court (id., citing

(c)). Plaintiffs cite no authority to support this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over any of those claims.

For all of the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis are GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 30, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 30, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126