Williams v. Andreopoulos & Hill, LLC, 2:19-cv-10283

Plaintiff Edward Eugene Williams, a pro se incarcerated litigant, alleges his state-court matters were settled without his knowledge or consent in 2012 and filed this federal suit on January 29, 2019 against multiple defendants associated with the Andreopoulos & Hill law firm.
Defendants Michelle Huntoon and Zena Naji (identified as firm support/attorney staff) were separately represented and moved to dismiss on December 30, 2021 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
Huntoon and Naji submitted sworn affidavits attesting to employment beginning in 2013–2014, which post-date the alleged 2012 settlement; the magistrate noted those affidavits present matters outside the complaint and cannot be considered on a pure Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting to summary judgment.
On March 8, 2022 Williams filed two responses stating he wished to dismiss Huntoon and Naji based on their sworn statements/affidavits; the magistrate construed those responses as Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notices of voluntary dismissal.
The magistrate judge recommended granting Williams’s voluntary-dismissal motions as to Huntoon and Naji and denying Huntoon and Naji’s pending motion to dismiss as moot; the report set the standard 14-day object/appeal procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams’s March 8 filings operate as voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)	Williams asked to dismiss Huntoon and Naji based on their affidavits	Defendants had moved to dismiss and sought adjudication on the merits	Court construed the filings as Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notices and recommended granting voluntary dismissal
Whether the court may consider Huntoon and Naji’s affidavits on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Williams relied on the affidavits to justify dismissal of those defendants	Defendants submitted affidavits showing employment dates and argued facts undermining the complaint	Court noted affidavits are outside the complaint and cannot be considered on 12(b)(6) without converting to summary judgment
Adequacy of pro se pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6)	Williams invoked pro se status and asserted claims enough for review	Defendants argued claims were deficient and sought dismissal or a more definite statement	Court reiterated pro se leniency but stressed pleading requirements; however it did not decide the 12(b)(6) merits because dismissal was sought by plaintiff
Disposition of defendants’ pending motion to dismiss	N/A (Williams sought dismissal)	Asked for dismissal under 12(b)(6) or 12(e)	Because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Huntoon and Naji, the motion to dismiss was recommended denied as moot

Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard for construing complaints on Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and requirement to plead more than labels and conclusions)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
Frengler v. Gen. Motors, [citation="482 F. App'x 975"] (6th Cir. 2012) (courts should not have to guess at the nature of a pro se claim)
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591 (6th Cir. 1989) (limitations on courts rewriting pro se complaints)
16630 Southfield Ltd., P’Ship v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B., 727 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2013) (discussion of plausibility and competing explanations)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (procedural consequence of failing to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report)