United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Joseph F. Olivares, Plaintiff,
Michigan Workers' Compensation Agency, et al., Defendants.
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
TO DISMISS [38 & 49]
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge.
Joseph Olivares filed a pro se Complaint on July 26,
2018 [Dkt. #1]. In its August 29, 2018 Order , the Court
granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismissed his complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff
appealed this decision, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this Court’s
decision and remanded the case for further proceedings .
On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint 
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
and Procedural History
Court will adopt the Sixth Circuit’s recitation of the
Olivares filed for workers’ compensation benefits,
claiming that he sustained a work-related injury after
falling from a ladder on May 5, 1998. In December 2000, a
magistrate with the Michigan Bureau of Workers’
Disability Compensation (“Bureau”) found that
Olivares “suffered an injury which arose out of and in
the course of his employment, ” but that he was not
entitled to wage-loss benefits beyond August 1, 1998 because
he unreasonably refused favored work and “voluntarily
removed himself from the work force.” Olivares
subsequently filed an application for additional benefits. In
2005, a magistrate issued an order concluding that Olivares
was entitled to additional benefits from September 1, 2003,
until May 20, 2005, but that he was not entitled to any
benefits beyond that date because he “was no longer
suffering from the effects of the work injury which disabled
him in the first place.” The Michigan Compensation
Appellate Commission (“MCAC”) affirmed the
Olivares has since filed “multiple applications,
appeals, motions, and pleadings” with the Bureau and
the MCAC in an effort to secure additional workers’
compensation benefits for his 1998 injury. As pertinent to
this appeal, Olivares filed an application with the Bureau in
December 2017, in which he alleged that he had recently
discovered a hernia that was attributable to his 1998
work-related injury. Magistrate William Housefield dismissed
the application after determining that Olivares’s
hernia claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. MCAC
Commissioners Gary Goolsby, Kevin L. Weise, and Jack F.
Wheatley affirmed the Bureau’s dismissal of
Dkt. 7-2, pg. 1-2.
recitation does not mention Mr. Olivares’s previous
state and federal suits, because Mr. Olivares did not mention
them. Indeed, Mr. Olivares has filed at least four federal
lawsuits before this one challenging the above-described
decisions by the Bureau and the MCAC.
November 18, 2002, Mr. Olivares filed suit against Illinois
National Insurance Company, AIG Claims Services, and
Performance Contracting, Inc. alleging that he was not paid
his lawfully-owed disability benefi t s f o ll o w i ng h i s
1 9 9 8 injury. Olivares v. Performance Contracting
Group, et al., 2:02-cv-74585-NGE. On January 16, 2003,
The district court sua sponte dismissed the action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the
Rooker-Feldman precluded the collateral attack of
adverse state court proceedings in Indiana and Michigan. Dkt.
4 (Edmunds, J.). On August 5, 2013, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed this decision. Olivares v. Performance
Contracting Group, et al., 76 F.App'x 603, 2003 WL
21805273 (6th Cir. 2003).
March 17, 2015, Mr. Olivares filed suit against the Michigan
Worker’s Disability Compensation Agency
(“MWDCA”) and individual defendants
“Elsenheimer, Campbell, and Mark Long.”
Olivares v. Michigan Worker’s Compensation
Agency, et al., Case No. 15-cv-11004-AC-RSW,
Dkt. 1. The district court dismissed his case as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), citing the
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Michigan’s three-year
statute of limitations for personal injury claims, and the
complaint’s general unintelligibility. Olivares v.
Michigan Worker’s Compensation Agency, 2015 WL
1530759 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2015) (Cohn, J.). On August 18,
2015, the Sixth Circuit denied Mr. Olivares the right to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, finding the
appeal “lack[ed] arguable basis in law.” Case No.
15-1439; Dkt. 9. After Mr. Olivares failed to pay the filing
fee within the allotted time, his appeal was dismissed. Case
No. 15-1439; Dkt. 10.
February 22, 2017, Mr. Olivares filed another federal lawsuit
challenging decisions by the MWDCA and MCAC. This suit named
several more defendants, including the Michigan Board of
Magistrates, Robert Tjapkes, “Collette, ” and the
Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission. Olivares v.
Michigan Compensation Agency et al, Case No.
2:17-cv-10594-AC-RSW. The district again dismissed the case
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Id., Dkt. 4 (Cohn, J.). Plaintiff did not appeal.
December 12, 2017, Mr. Olivares filed yet another complaint
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan challenging the results of his Worker’s
Compensation cases. This suit named several more defendants,
including Christopher Ambrose, James Kent, and John Doe.
See Olivares v. Michigan Worker’s Compensation
Agency, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-13994-AC-EAS.
Judge Cohn again dismissed the case sua sponte as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He found that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the court of
jurisdiction and that Michigan’s three-year statute of
limitations for § 1983 claims otherwise barred
Plaintiff’s claims. See Dkt. # 5; Olivares
v. Michigan Compensation Agency, 2017 WL 8792723 (E.D.
Mich. Dec. 27, 2017) (Cohn, J.). Mr. Olivares appealed, and
his appeal was this time denied on the merits after he paid
his filing fee. See Olivares v. Michigan Workers’
Compensation Agency, et al, Case No. 18-1048 Dkt. 24
(6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2018). The Sixth Circuit held that the
district court misapplied the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, which did not operate to deprive district courts of
jurisdiction over state agency adjudications, but that the
three-year statute of limitations barred Mr. Olivares’s
cause of action. The decision was affirmed. Id. On
April 14, 2019, the United States Supreme Court denied Mr.
Olivares’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Olivares v. Michigan Worker’s Compensation
Agency, 139 S.Ct. 1552 (2019).
Olivares brought suit in this Court on July 26, 2018. [Dkt.
1]. On August 29, 2018, the Court dismissed his action as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It denied his
Motion for Reconsideration on November 15, 2018. [Dkt. 12].
Mr. Olivares appealed this Court’s ruling against him
on November 26, 2018, 11 days after losing his prior appeal
at the Sixth Circuit. [Dkt. 13]. This appeal was successful,
and the Sixth Circuit vacated this Court’s judgment on
April 16, 2019. See Olivares v. Michigan Worker’s
Compensation Agency, et al., Case No. 18-2369, 2019 WL
2299250 (6th Cir. 2019). The Mandate  from the Sixth
Circuit issued in this case on May 9, 2019. On May 16, 2019,
the Court entered an Order  reopening the case. On May
21, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint .
State of Michigan Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss 
on August 6, 2019. Plaintiff filed a Response  to that
motion on August 14, 2019. On August 22, 2019 Performance
Contracting Group filed an Answer and Brief  that asked
for dismissal on res judicata and jurisdictional
grounds. The Court construes that filing as a Motion to
Dismiss and notes that Plaintiff filed a Response  on
September 3, 2019. The Court now finds both motions suitable
for determination without a hearing in accord with Local Rule
moves to dismiss for lack of subject matters pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A challenge to subject matter
jurisdiction takes the form of a facial attack or a factual
attack. Defendants make a factual attack, which means that it
challenges “the factual existence of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Cartwright v. Garner, 751 F.3d
752, 759-60 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
factual allegations do not get the benefit of the presumption
of truthfulness, and the Court may “weigh the ...