Hill et al v. Granholm et al
OPINION OVERRULING OBJECTIONS. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
Case 2:10-cv-14568-MAG-RSW ECF No. 361, PageID.7418 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
HENRY HILL, et al.,
Case No. 10-14568
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
OPINION OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
On November 2, 2020, the Court held a fairness hearing during which the parties sought
final approval of a proposed settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), and during
which four class members presented their objections to the proposed settlement.1 As set forth in
the final order approving settlement entered on today’s date, the Court overrules these objections
for the reasons that follow.
The class members’ objections are summarized as follows. First, Federico Cruz objected
to the proposed settlement terms as to Count VIII on the ground that they do not require Defendant
Dana Nessel, Michigan’s Attorney General, to instruct prosecutors that all but the most incorrigible
juvenile offenders are entitled to a term-of-years sentence. Cruz Objections, Ex. 2 to Notice of
Objections (Dkt. 349-3). Second, Clifton Gill objected to the Count VIII settlement terms on the
ground that they should require prosecutors to review class members’ files before pursuing life
without parole on resentencing. Gill Objections, Ex. 3 to Notice of Objections (Dkt. 349-4). Third,
Robert Hinds challenged the effectiveness of his appellate counsel in the state-court criminal
A fifth class member, Robert Cook, filed written objections, Cook Objections, Ex. 1 to Notice of
Objections (Dkt. 349-2), but was resentenced on October 29, 2020 and was discharged from
custody on November 2, 2020. Therefore, his objections were rendered moot by the time of the
Case 2:10-cv-14568-MAG-RSW ECF No. 361, PageID.7419 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2
proceedings and seeks to compel the state-court prosecutor to disclose newly discovered
exculpatory evidence. Hinds Objection, Ex. 4 to Notice of Objections (Dkt. 349-5). Finally,
Adrian Nichols, argued that the proposed settlement should provide for monetary compensation
for the alleged mental and emotional distress caused by class members’ lack of access to
educational programming. Nichols Objections, Ex. 5 to Notice of Objections (Dkt. 349-6).
These objections are unavailing, as they seek relief that exceeds the scope of the two
remaining claims asserted in the fourth amended complaint. Specifically, Count VI of the
complaint concerns class members’ access to core programming required to demonstrate their
suitability for parole, while Count VIII challenges the allegedly unreasonable delays in
resentencing class members. See 4th Am. Compl (Dkt. 316). In their objections, Cruz and Gill
seek to add settlement terms directing how the Attorney General should guide the resentencing
process. However, while Count VIII seeks to vindicate class members’ right to a prompt
resentencing process, it does not seek to establish what the resentencing process must entail.
Similarly, the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, as sought by Hinds, is plainly beyond the scope
of relief sought in the present action. Finally, the complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
but does not seek monetary compensation on behalf of the class members, as requested by Nichols.
Consequently, the Court overrules these objections to the proposed settlement, as the additional
relief sought by these class members goes beyond the contours of the complaint.
Dated: November 17, 2020
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?