Davis et al v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 110

OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 90 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY DAVIS
and HATEMA DAVIS,
Case No. 15-10547
Plaintiffs,
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

v.
CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,

David R. Grand
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.
______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ARTHUR LEAVELLS’ MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Timothy Davis and Hatema Davis allege that their
home was wrongfully raided by officers of the Detroit Narcotics Unit on December 27, 2013; that
they were subject to unlawful arrest and detention during and after the raid; and that their property,
which included a quantity of marijuana plants and related byproducts, was wrongfully confiscated
in the course of the raid. (See ECF No. 21 at 2-4.) Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments, and also bring a claim against Defendant City of Detroit under Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), based on allegations of the City’s inadequate
training and/or supervision of its agents and employees regarding the constitutional rights of
citizens. (See ECF No. 21 at 4-6.)
Defendant Arthur Leavells filed the present Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on July
14, 2016. (ECF No. 90.) In that Motion, Defendant Leavells asserts that certain violations of the
Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL §333.26421 et seq., on Plaintiffs’ part were discovered in
the course of the raid on December 27, 2013, and argues that those violations bar Plaintiffs from

1

collecting damages for their confiscated marijuana and associated property under Michigan’s
wrongful-conduct rule. (See ECF No. 90 at 12-16.) In their Response to the Motion, Plaintiffs
counter that Defendant Leavells has cited no authority supporting the application of this rule to
their federal constitutional claims. (See ECF No. 94 at 7.) Defendant Leavells clarifies in his Reply
that the Motion “seeks only partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims for damages on their
‘lost’ marijuana.” (ECF No. 95 at 1.)
Plaintiffs stated in their Response, however, that the “instant action does not allege any
claims under state law.” (ECF No. 94 at 7 n.1.) Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated on the record
at the status conference on January 20, 2017 that Plaintiffs have not asserted any substantive
state-law claims in this action. Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to dismiss such claims,
as they do not exist.
For this reason, Defendant Leavells’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Dated: January 24, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney
or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on January 24, 2017.
s/D. Tofil
Deborah Tofil, Case Manager
2