v. Detroit

Filing 39

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Brief and Rescheduling Motion Hearing as to 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment :( Supplemental Brief due by 12/12/2011, Motion Hearing re-set for 12/21/2011 02:00 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARIAN LLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 10-14903

CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF AND RESCHEDULING MOTION HEARING
Plaintiff Sharian Lloyd brought suit against Defendants alleging deprivation of
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims.
Defendants Lisa Ray, Patrice Cooper, David Marshall, Kenneth Germain, Brian Franz,
and the City of Detroit timely removed to this court on December 9, 2010. On January
24, 2011, the court remanded Plaintiff’s state law claims to the Wayne County Circuit
Court. The complaint alleges that the individual Defendants violated the following rights
of Plaintiff:
1.

“The freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable indifference by the police”;

2.

“The freedom from unnecessary force”;

3.

“The freedom to be secure in one’s person”;

4.

“The freedom from being unlawfully assaulted and/or beaten”;

5.

“The right to due process of law”;

6.

“The right to equal protection of the laws”; and

7.

“The right to liberty.”

(Compl. at 52(a)-(g).) The complaint also alleges municipal and supervisory liability
against Defendants City of Detroit, David Marshall, and Kenneth Germain. (Id. at 1315.) Plaintiff’s complaint is not a model of clarity and the practice of reciting generic
constitutional violations without clearly stating the source of the right and nature of the
alleged violation introduces confusion into the litigation process.
Here, because of Plaintiff’s poorly pleaded complaint, the court is unable to
confidently determine what claims are actually in dispute in the case. At the close of
discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the entirety of Plaintiff’s
complaint. Defendants’ motion, however, analyzes alleged violations of Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights limited to two spheres—excessive force and wrongful arrest—and
does not acknowledge that Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of seven purported
constitutional “rights.” In her response, Plaintiff also fails to reference the “rights” recited
in the complaint, but suggests nonetheless that the number of claims at issue in the
case may be greater than those discussed by Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s response
indicates that Plaintiff believes the following claims may be at issue:
1.

Excessive force in violation of the Forth Amendment, as incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment, against the individual Defendants;

2.

Wrongful arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment, against the individual Defendants;

3.

Retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment, as incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment, against the individual Defendants;

4.

Deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment against the individual Defendants; and
2

5.

Municipal liability against Defendant City of Detroit.
These five claims do not mirror the laundry list of “rights” Plaintiff articulated in

her complaint, and the court is left to conclude that any federal claims conceivably
asserted by Plaintiff in her complaint but not mentioned in her responsive brief have
since been abandoned, narrowed, or subsumed.
Before considering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court will
order Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief stating what, if any, federal claims not
addressed in her responsive brief are thought to be at issue. Plaintiff may satisfy this
order by stating that the five claims set forth above are the only claims currently at issue
in this case. The court will also permit Defendants to file a supplemental brief in
response to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff file a concise supplemental brief, limited to 10
pages, on or before December 12, 2011. The brief shall state whether any federal
claims in addition to the five articulated above are currently in dispute in this case. If
additional claims are in dispute, Plaintiff shall clearly state the nature of the claim and
the source of the purported constitutional right.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any supplemental brief filed by Defendants be
filed on or before December 19, 2011. Defendants’ brief shall be limited to 10 pages.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the motion hearing currently scheduled for
December 14, 2011, is RESCHEDULED for December 21, 2011, at 2:00 p.m.

S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

Dated: December 7, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 7, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10-14903.LLOYD.Supplemental.Brief.Remaining.Fed.Claims.jrc.2.wpd

4