Davis v. Warren, City of et al

Filing 32

OPINION and ORDER Granting 31 Defendant City of Warren's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, SR.,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 16-CV-13852

vs.
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
CITY OF WARREN, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
CITY OF WARREN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is presently before the Court on the motion of defendant City of Warren
for summary judgment [docket entry 31]. Plaintiff has not responded, and the time for him to do so
has expired. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide this motion without a
hearing.
This is a police misconduct action. Plaintiff alleges that on January 23, 2014, he
“was interrogated, chased, and arrested without probable cause, and taken into [] custody” by City
of Warren police officers. Compl. ¶ 7. While plaintiff was in custody, the officers allegedly
“without reason or provocation, physically attacked Plaintiff, by punching, kicking, and/or otherwise
using improper, unjustified, and excessive force and violence against Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 8. In addition
to suing the officers for violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, plaintiff claims that
the city is liable because it “authorized, tolerated, ratified, permitted, or acquiesced in the creation
of policies, practices, and customs, establishing a de facto policy of deliberate indifference to
individuals such as Plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 17.
In its motion for summary judgment, the city argues that plaintiff has no evidence to
support his allegations regarding municipal liability. In particular, defendant argues that plaintiff

has no evidence to show that the city acquiesces in the use of excessive force by its officers or that
it has failed to train its officers in the proper use of force.
The law on this point is clear: “To establish deliberate indifference, the plaintiff
‘must show prior instances of unconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the [City] has ignored a
history of abuse and was clearly on notice that the training in this particular area was deficient and
likely to cause injury.’” Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep’t, 844 F.3d 556, 573 (6th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837, 849 (6th Cir. 2005); alteration in original). A city “custom
or policy must be the ‘moving force’ behind the constitutional violation, Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 326, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981), so the plaintiff needs to ‘identify the policy,
connect the policy to the city itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the
execution of that policy.’ Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir.1993) (citation
omitted).” Amerson v. Waterford Twp., 562 F. App’x 484, 490 (6th Cir. 2014).
By failing to respond to defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff concedes
that he has no evidence to support his municipal liability claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant City of Warren’s motion for summary judgment is
granted.

Dated: February 23, 2018
Detroit, Michigan

s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 23, 2018.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager

3