Thompson v. Detroit

Filing 46

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 42 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDJRON THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-14095
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,

Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#42]
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on November 18, 2016, alleging that

Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they wrongfully searched his house
and made him lay naked for 35-45 minutes during the execution of search. On
February 8, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Motion
is fully briefed. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

1

II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Andrjon Thompson bought the house at 16089 Manning,1 Detroit,

Michigan (the “Property”) in 2012 or 2013, and the deed was filed with Wayne
County’s Register of Deeds. The address on his driver’s license reflects the 16089
Manning address. Plaintiff has lived at that address since he purchased the Property,
and his girlfriend and their young daughter also live there. Plaintiff represents that the
house on the Property is and was secured with locks and security doors at the time of
the events relevant to this lawsuit.
On July 6, 2016, based on a search warrant obtained through the efforts of
Defendant Craig Stewart, a Detroit Police Department officer, the house on the
Property was searched by officers from the Detroit Police Department. The officers
involved in the search included Sergeant Diaz Graves, Jason Clark, Stewart, Leo
Rhodes, and Nicholas Bukowski (the “individual Defendants”). Stewart had caused
the Wayne County Prosecutors Office to request, and 36th District Court Magistrate

1

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint does not identify the address of the house where he
resided and the Defendants searched on July 6, 2016. The search warrant affidavit indicates that
the house to be searched was at 16089 Manning, and Plaintiff testified that he lived at 16089
Manning and 16089 Manning was the address on his house and his driver’s license. The number
painted on the curb in front of the house also was “16809.” The Wayne County Records
attached as an Exhibit to Defendants’ Brief in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment:
(a) identify the house as being located at 16087 Manning; and (b) reflect that the Property was
owned by the Detroit Land Bank Authority as of January 13, 2016, nearly six months before the
search of the Property was executed. Dkt. No. 42, Ex. C.
2

Millicent D. Sherman to issue, a search warrant on that date. Stewart’s affidavit in
support of the search warrant application for 16089 Manning stated that he had
observed narcotic trafficking activity on the Property on May 23, 2016, July 4, 2016,
and July 5, 2016. Based on submitted police activity logs, it appears May 23, 2016
may be a typo (because there is no indication of surveillance or activity on Manning
Street on the May 23, 2016 police activity log). The intended date for Stewart’s
affidavit (and the one the Court will use for purposes of this Order) likely was May
24, 2016, even though the closest address to 16089 Manning that was listed as being
under surveillance on the May 24, 2016 police activity log was 15889 Manning
(presumably about two blocks away).
When the individual Defendants knocked on the door at the house on the
Property on July 6, 2016, no one answered. The individual Defendants then forced
entry into the house. Plaintiff was showering during the knock and entry, and he
opened the bathroom door to discover the officers with their firearms pointed at him.
Plaintiff’s request to be allowed to get dressed was denied, and he was ordered to the
floor and required to lay there naked for an extended period of time. None of the
individual Defendants intervened or allowed him to get some clothes to wear. The
individual Defendants did not find any evidence of narcotics and eventually released
Plaintiff without any charges. Plaintiff was detained for 35-45 minutes before the
3

Defendant officers left. Defendants Graves and Stewart allowed Plaintiff to get up
and put on some shorts before the officers left – though it is unclear how long prior
to the Defendant officers’ departure that Plaintiff was allowed to put on the shorts.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges the following counts: (1) 42 U.S.C.
1983 claims against the individual Defendants with respect to the search itself and the
manner in which the search was executed; (2) a municipal liability claim against
Defendant City of Detroit. Plaintiff claims he has suffered “significant emotional
distress, anxiety, sleeplessness, and appetite loss due to” the execution of the search
warrant. Plaintiff also claims that he suffered from humiliation and embarrassment
because he had to lay naked on the floor for an extended period of time.
III.

APPLICABLE LAW

A.

Rule 56
Rule 56(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedures provides that the court “shall grant

summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). The presence of factual disputes will preclude granting of summary
judgment only if the disputes are genuine and concern material facts. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is
“genuine” only if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
4

for the nonmoving party.” Id. Although the Court must view the motion in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party, where “the moving party has carried its
burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment must be entered against a party who fails to
make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a
situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete
failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23. A
court must look to the substantive law to identify which facts are material. Anderson,
477 U.S. at 248.
B.

Qualified Immunity
As recently stated by the Supreme Court:
The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability
so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A
clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every
reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates
that right. We do not require a case directly on point, but existing
precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question
beyond debate. Put simply, qualified immunity protects all but the
5

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Qualified immunity is a two-step process. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). First,
the Court determines whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in a
light most favorable to the plaintiff show that a constitutional violation has occurred.
Second, the Court considers whether the violation involved a clearly established
constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would
have known. Saucier v. Katz, supra.; Sample v. Bailey, 409 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2005).
Only if the undisputed facts, or the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff fail to establish a prima facie violation of clear constitutional law can this
court find that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Turner v. Scott, 119
F.3d 425, 428 (6th Cir. 1997).
Once a government official has raised the defense of qualified immunity, the
plaintiff “bears the ultimate burden of proof to show that the individual officers are
not entitled to qualified immunity.” Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati, 468 F. App’x 491,
494 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). A plaintiff also must establish that each
individual defendant was “personally involved” in the specific constitutional violation.
See Salehphour v. University of Tennessee, 159 F.3d 199, 206 (6th Cir. 1998); Bennett
v. Schroeder, 99 F. App’x 707, 712-13 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (“It is well6

settled that to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must allege some
personal involvement by the each of the named defendants”).
IV.

ANALYSIS
The individual Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on

all claims because there is no evidence that they violated a clearly established
constitutional right that is actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants’
argument is premised on the fact that they executed a search warrant on the Property
that the assistant prosecutor requested and the magistrate issued, such that there was
no reason to question the validity of the search.
The search warrant affidavit states that, on each of May 24, 2016, July 4, 2016,
and July 5, 2016, Stewart observed narcotics activity at the Property. Specifically,
Stewart averred that, on each of those dates, one or more persons walked onto the
porch at the Property and knocked on the door. In four instances, Defendants indicate
that someone opened the door from inside the house and passed out a “small item in
a cupped hand motion” in exchange for “paper currency” provided by the visiting
person. In the fifth instance cited in the search warrant affidavit, a visitor passed a
“white hand sized package” to a person in the house who had opened the door in
exchange for an “item with four fingers extended.”
Plaintiff testified, and has submitted an affidavit stating that, on the dates set
7

forth in the search warrant affidavit: (a) the house was secured; (b) he and his
girlfriend were not at home; (c) no one was authorized to come in during his absence;
(d) he saw no evidence of any break in or unauthorized entry into the house; and (e)
neither he nor his girlfriend were ever involved in narcotics trafficking at any time,
including out of the house at 16089 Manning. Dkt. No. 44, Ex. 1.

Plaintiff

specifically states in his affidavit that neither he nor his girlfriend “nor anyone was in
our home involved with narcotics or any other kind of sales as described in Stewart’s
[search warrant] affidavit on th[e] days” the narcotic trafficking set forth in the search
warrant affidavit. Id.
A.

The Search
The Fourth Amendment requires that arrest warrants be issued only upon
a showing of probable cause. Greene v. Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101, 1105 (6th
Cir.1996). In a civil rights case, investigators are entitled to rely on a
judicially-secured arrest warrant as satisfactory evidence of probable
cause. Yancey v. Carroll County, 876 F.2d 1238, 1243 (6th Cir.1989)
(citations omitted). However, “an officer cannot rely on a judicial
determination of probable cause if that officer knowingly makes false
statements and omissions to the judge such that but for these falsities the
judge would not have issued the warrant.” Id; see also Ahlers v. Schebil,
188 F.3d 365, 373 (6th Cir.1999); Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271, 275
(6th Cir.1989).
An investigator may be held liable under § 1983 for making material
false statements either knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth to
establish probable cause for an arrest. Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 373. To
overcome an officer's entitlement to qualified immunity, however, a
plaintiff must establish: (1) a substantial showing that the defendant
stated a deliberate falsehood or showed reckless disregard for the truth
8

and (2) that the allegedly false or omitted information was material to the
finding of probable cause. See Hill, 884 F.2d at 275 (applying test set
forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d
667 (1973), to evaluate a § 1983 claim); see also Wilson v. Russo, 212
F.3d 781, 786–87 (3d Cir.2000); Hervey v. Estes, 65 F.3d 784, 789 (9th
Cir.1995); Packer v. City of Toledo, 1 Fed.Appx. 430, 433–342 (6th Cir.
2001) (unpublished opinion) (noting that the materiality of the false
information used to procure a search warrant was a key issue in deciding
whether to grant qualified immunity). In other words, Vakilian must
show that the judge would not have issued the warrant without the
allegedly false material.
Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509, 517 (6th Cir. 2003).
“Where qualified immunity is asserted, the issue of probable cause is one for
the court since ‘the entitlement is immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to
liability.’” Id. (citing Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227-28 (1991) (citation
omitted), and Burda Bros., Inc. v. Walsh, 22 F. App’x 423, 432 n.8 (6th Cir. 2001) (“It
is clear that in Hill, as in Yancey (which is cited in Hill), the issue is one for the jury
only when the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact for trial.”)).
The individual Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity vis
a vis the search itself. Except for Stewart, there is no evidence that any of the
individual Defendants participated in, or had any knowledge of, the alleged false
statements made by Stewart with respect narcotics trafficking at 16089 Manning on
May 24, 2016, July 4, 2016, or July 5, 2016. As the individual Defendants other than
Stewart were not involved in obtaining the search warrant, and there is no evidence
9

that they were aware of any false statements therein, those Defendants were entitled
to rely on the search warrant. See, e.g., Baranski v. Fifteen Unknown Agents, 452 F.3d
433, 441 (6th Cir. 2006); Yancey, 876 F.2d at 1243. The Court holds that Defendants
Graves, Clark, Rhodes, and Bukowski are entitled to qualified immunity vis a vis
probable cause to conduct the search.
As to Stewart, the qualified immunity analysis is much different. Plaintiff
alleges that Stewart lied about observing narcotics transactions at 16089 Manning on
the dates set forth in the affidavit. In Plaintiff’s affidavit, he avers that there could not
have been anyone inside the house at 16089 Manning on May 24, 2016, July 4, 2016,
and July 5, 2016 to make the exchanges described by Stewart in the search warrant
affidavit. The fact that Stewart submitted a subsequent affidavit rebuking Plaintiff’s
affidavit and affirming Stewart’s search warrant affidavit, see Dkt. No. 45, Ex. K,
does not overcome Plaintiff’s affidavit for purposes of the instant summary judgment
motion, as the Court must view all facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The
Court concludes that Plaintiff has made a substantial showing that Stewart stated
deliberate falsehoods regarding the narcotics trafficking at 16089 Manning on May
24, 2016, July 4, 2016, and July 5, 2016. Vakilian, 335 F.3d at 517. The Court finds
that the allegedly false information was material to the finding of probable cause by
the magistrate. Id.

If the allegedly false statements regarding the narcotics
10

transactions on those dates are removed from Stewart’s search warrant affidavit, the
Court finds that there would not be probable cause to issue the warrant. Because
Stewart supplied the allegedly false statements to the prosecutor and magistrate, he
cannot rely on the judicial determination of probable cause made by the magistrate
when the magistrate issued the warrant. See Vakilian, 335 F.3d at 517; Ahlers, 188
F.3d at 373; Hill, 884 F.2d at 275. The Court denies Stewart’s claim that he is entitled
to qualified immunity for the search.
The Court also finds that Stewart is not entitled to summary judgment on the
merits. As stated in Hill,2 a case that also involved false statements made deliberately
or with reckless disregard for the truth in a search warrant affidavit:
As against McIntyre, the Hills attack the very validity of the warrant on
which their house was searched. An action under Sec. 1983 does lie
against an officer who obtains an invalid search warrant by making, in
his affidavit, material false statements either knowingly or in reckless
disregard for the truth. Donta v. Hooper, 774 F.2d 716, 718 (6th
Cir.1985) (per curiam), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1019, 107 S.Ct. 3261, 97
L.Ed.2d 760 (1987). This standard originates in Franks v. Delaware, 438
U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), a suppression case in
which the Supreme Court defined the Fourth Amendment's guarantee in
the context of search warrants issued on the basis of false affidavits: only
if “a false statement [was made] knowingly and intentionally, or with
reckless disregard for the truth” and if, “with the affidavit's false material
set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to
2

Hill addressed whether the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict for the officers,
not whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In evaluating a motion for directed
verdict, as in evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all facts in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party–in this case, Plaintiff.
11

establish probable cause,” is there a constitutional violation under the
Fourth Amendment. Id. at 155-56 . . . While the Court is necessarily the
factfinder in a Franks suppression hearing preliminary to a criminal trial,
in a Sec. 1983 action factfinding under the Franks standard is the
province of the jury. Hindman v. City of Paris, Tex., 746 F.2d 1238 (5 th
Cir. 1984). Indeed, in a recent Sec. 1983 case our Circuit has held that
the question whether the judicial officer issuing the warrant would have
done so even without the knowingly or recklessly false statement is one
for the jury, and we remanded the issue for trial. Yancey v. Carroll
County, 876 F.2d 1238 (6th Cir. 1989).
Id. at 275-76. As Plaintiff argues, the Sixth Circuit still recognizes that rule. See, e.g.,
Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010); Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444
F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006).
The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute whether the statements in the
search warrant affidavit were false, which means there is material question for the jury
as to whether the magistrate had probable cause to issue the warrant. The Court holds
that Stewart is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that there was
not probable cause for the search.
B.

Expectation of Privacy
Defendants argue that Plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy

because he had no ownership interest in the Property. An individual seeking Fourth
Amendment protection must “demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of
privacy” in the premises searched. United States v. Hunyady, 409 F.3d 297, 300 (6th
Cir. 2005). The “factors to be considered in determining whether there was a
12

legitimate expectation of privacy include ownership, lawful possession, or lawful
control of the property.” Id. (citing United States v. McRae, 156 F.3d 70, 711 (6 th
Cir. 1998)). “A [party] must satisfy a two-pronged test to show a legitimate
expectation of privacy: 1) he must manifest an actual, subjective expectation of
privacy; and 2) that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
legitimate.” Hunyady, 409 F.3d at 301 (quoting United States v. Pollard, 215 F.3d
643, 647 (6 th Cir. 2000)).
Defendants argue that the Property was foreclosed on March 20, 2015 and
quitclaimed to the Detroit Land Bank Authority on January 13, 2016 (about six
months before the search). Plaintiff counters that, because he owned the Property
legally, Dkt. No. 42, Ex. C at PgID 344, and no one attempted to remove Plaintiff
from, or even notify Plaintiff of the foreclosure and sale of, the Property, Plaintiff had
a reasonable expectation of privacy under Michigan tenancy by sufferance law. See
Hunyady, 409 F.3d at 301:
In Michigan, a tenant by sufferance is one “who came into possession [of
the property] rightfully, by permission of the owner, and continued to
occupy the premises after the expiration of his lease.” Ryal’s, Inc. v.
Stavropoulos, 273 Mich. 680, 263 N.W. 770, 770 (1935); see also
School Dist. No. 11 of Alpine Township v. Batsche, 106 Mich. 330, 64
N.W. 196, 197 (1895) (“[T]he rule is that a person in possession of land
lawfully, who holds over without right, becomes a tenant at sufferance,
if the owner suffers him to remain in possession a sufficient length of
time to imply an intentional acquiescence in the occupancy, and it is not
necessary that the previous holding be that of a tenant.”).
13

The Court notes that the evidence reflects that Plaintiff: (a) lived at the
Property, without interruption or notice that he had no right to live at the Property, for
at least three years before the search occurred; and (b) has continued to live there since
the search, again without interruption or notice that he has no right to live there. As
Plaintiff suggests, the fact that all of the foreclosure proceedings related to the address
16087 Manning – not 16089 Manning, constitute evidence that could support his lack
of notice regarding any legal action taken with respect to the Property. Accordingly,
the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute whether Plaintiff had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the house on the Property.
C.

Naked Detention
With respect to the execution of the search warrant, Plaintiff alleged – and has

testified – that: (a) Defendants refused Plaintiff’s request to be allowed to put on
clothing; and (b) Plaintiff had to remain naked for the entirety of the 35-45 minute
search. Dkt. No. 42, Ex. E at PgID 363; Dkt. No. 44, Ex. 1. Defendants deny that
Plaintiff was naked, and Graves submitted a subsequent affidavit rebuking Plaintiff’s
affidavit and indicating that Plaintiff was not naked during the execution of the search.
See Dkt. No. 45, Ex. L. Graves avers that Plaintiff was wearing shorts and a tank top
the whole time. Id. But, Graves’ affidavit does not overcome Plaintiff’s testimony and
affidavit for purposes of the instant summary judgment motion, as the Court must
14

view all facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Hall v. Shipley, 932 F.2d 1147,
1153 (6th Cir. 1991).
The Court concludes that none of the individual Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity – and that summary judgment is denied – with respect to
Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim stemming from the execution of the search. The Sixth
Circuit has “conclude[d] that a reasonable officer in [the] officers’ position would
have known that requiring an individual to sit naked [for twenty or thirty minutes] .
. . would violate such individual’s ‘clearly established’ rights.” Shipley, 932 F.2d at
1153-54 (citations omitted). Graves and Stewart admit that they secured and
interrogated Plaintiff at the scene, so both of them are subject to liability with respect
to Plaintiff’s claim based on the execution of the search. Id.
There is evidence that the other individual Defendants saw Plaintiff being
detained naked throughout the execution of the search warrant. For that reason, each
of them (and Graves and/or Stewart, to the extent either or both of them did not
physically detain Plaintiff) is subject to Section 1983 liability because he did nothing
to stop the violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established right to not be detained naked for
an extended period of time. See,e.g., id; Durham v. Nu’Man, 97 F.3d 862, 867-68
(6th Cir. 1996) (holding that hospital security officer who failed to protect inmates or
patients from assault by other officers could be held liable for failing to intervene);
15

McHenry v. Chadwick, 896 F.2d 184, 188 (6th Cir. 1990) (“a correctional officer who
observes an unlawful beating may . . . be held liable under § 1983 without actively
participating in the unlawful beating”); Bruner v. Dunaway, 684 F.2d 422, 424 (6th
Cir. 1982) (holding that officer who stood by and did nothing while the plaintiff was
beaten by other officer could be held liable).
The Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to
Plaintiff’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated when the individual
Defendants required Plaintiff to remain naked throughout the execution of the search
warrant.
D.

City of Detroit
In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant City of Detroit

has implemented, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals, certain customs, policies, or practices that
violate his rights under the United States Constitution. A municipal defendant can
only be subject to direct liability if it causes the constitutional harm because it
“implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision
officially adopted and promulgated by” that body’s officers. Monell v. New York City
Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

“[I]t is when execution of a

government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose
16

edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the
government as an entity is responsible under Section 1983.” Id. at 694. A plaintiff
cannot allege a viable claim based solely on vicarious liability or respondeat superior.
Id. at 691. The municipality’s policy (or absence of one) must be a “moving force”
in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights and such policy must have
arisen from “deliberate indifference” to the rights of its citizens. Doe v. Claiborne
Cty., Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 508 (6th Cir. 1996).
The First Amended Complaint conclusorily alleges a number of alleged
practices, policies, or customs that were a proximate cause and a moving force in the
alleged violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The First Amended Complaint
does not identify any specific facts or officers who engaged in action(s) pursuant to
such practices, policies, or customs. In his response brief, Plaintiff fails to offer: (1)
evidence of any practice, policy, or custom that was the proximate cause and moving
force behind the violation of his rights; or (2) even any argument regarding such a
practice, policy, or custom.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim is not supported
by sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment and grants Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim.
V.

CONCLUSION
17

Accordingly,
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. No. 42]
With respect to Count I, (a) Defendants Graves, Clark, Rhodes, and Bukowski
are dismissed with respect to Plaintiff’s claim based on the search itself; (b) Plaintiff’s
claim against Defendant Stewart with respect to the search itself continues; and (c)
Plaintiff’s claim based on the execution of the search claim – specifically, the naked
detention of Plaintiff – continues against all individual Defendants.
With respect to Count II, Plaintiff’s claim for municipal liability against
Defendant City of Detroit is dismissed.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: May 1, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on May 1, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

18