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.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). But “a district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint 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.” Id. Claims against judges based on their “performance of judicial functions” are “wholly devoid of merit,” because judges are entitled to absolute immunity from them. Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967)). Accordingly, these types of claims against judges may be sua sponte dismissed under Civil Rule 12(b)(1).

And a plaintiff's claims against a judge based on their “performance of judicial functions” are “wholly devoid of merit,” because judges are entitled to absolute immunity from such claims. Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967)).

Thus, even assuming the owners have not forfeited their due-process claim by "advert[ing] to [it] in a perfunctory manner" on appeal, Harden v. Hillman, 993 F.3d 465, 477 n.3 (6th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted), their claim is totally frivolous such that it deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to decide it, Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999); Hassink v. Mottl, 47 Fed.Appx. 753, 754-55 (6th Cir. 2002); Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022).

; compare Jones, 2025 WL 521313, at *2 (considering a dismissal based on “absolute judicial immunity” and concluding “[a] dismissal based on immunity . . . does not count as a PLRA strike”) with Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (Thapar, J., concurring) (“[J]udicial immunity isn't a jurisdictional doctrine; it's an affirmative defense that goes to the merits.”).

Judges have absolute judicial immunity from suits against them arising out of their performance of judicial functions, “even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly . . . .” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *1-2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (affirming the dismissal sua sponte of a claim against a judge as frivolous and implausible). Plaintiffs only allege that District Judge Hernandez-Covington ruled in favor of Abdul-Jabbar in the Middle District of Florida case and that she did so out of some loyalty to the lawyers representing Abdul-Jabbar.

If Plaintiff's claims against Kroopnick survive this motion, Kroopnick may raise and brief the immunity affirmative defense, as appropriate. See Burnham v. Friedland, No. 213888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (Thapar, J., concurring) (“judicial immunity isn't a jurisdictional doctrine; it's an affirmative defense that goes to the merits.”). Plaintiff filed a 4-page response (ECF No. 10, PageID.23- 26), along with 914 pages of exhibits, most of which are hearing transcripts (id., PageID.27-940).

(“Judges are generally absolutely immune from civil suits for money damages, including [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 suits”); see also Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (Holding that when a complaint against a judge “does not even attempt to circumvent judicial immunity, it is wholly implausible and devoid of merit”). Plaintiff Michelle W. did not possess standing for many of her claims, but rather “assert[ed] claims on behalf of others, attempting to show [that] Defendants violated the undisclosed constitutional rights of other people with whom [she had] no identifiable connection.” Gifford v. United States, No. 18-13344, 2018 WL 6728416, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 6, 2018).

As properly explained in the R&R, both judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit based on conduct within the scope of their duties. See, e.g., Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (“Judges are absolutely immune from suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of their performance of judicial functions.” (internal citation omitted)); Lucas v. Moore, No. 19-4010, 2021 WL 2773936, at *3 (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2021) (“Prosecutors have absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of their duties.” (internal citation omitted)).

” Burnham v. Friedland, No. 21-3888, 2022 WL 3046966, at *1 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022) (quoting Apple, 183 F.3d at 479)