Coakley v. Posey et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TYWAUN COAKLEY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:19-cv-12300

v.

HON. PAUL D. BORMAN

DET. STEVE POSEY,
DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT
and CITY OF DETROIT,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 1)
Plaintiff Tywaun Coakley’s pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 is before the Court for initial screening following a grant of in forma
pauperis status. (ECF No. 4.) Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e), and 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the Court is required to dismiss the case before service on
defendants if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Having made such a finding, the Court
will dismiss the complaint.

I.

Background

Plaintiff names as defendants Detective Steve Posey, the Detroit Police
Department, and (in caption only) the City of Detroit, Michigan. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff’s brief factual allegations address only Det. Posey’s conduct and consist
of the following:
In September 2016, Detective Posey did give sworn testimony that he
knew to be false at a probable cause hearing against the Plaintiff in
order to obtain a first degree murder indictment against the Plaintiff.
Detective Posey gave testimony that the Plaintiff did confess to the
murder on paper and or video.
This testimony was found to be false.
(Compl. at 6, ECF No. 1, PageID 6.) Plaintiff’s requested relief is for $1,000,000
plus costs for mental duress and recovery of legal fees and “lost of wages.” (Id. at
9.)
II.

Screening Procedure and Pleading Standards

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the Court is required to
dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis complaint before service if it determines
that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(c); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). When evaluating a
complaint under that standard, courts “construe the complaint in the light most
2

favorable to the plaintiff, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and
examine whether the complaint contains ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Hill v. Snyder, 878 F.3d
193, 203 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A
pro se civil rights complaint is to be construed liberally. Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
A complaint must set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as well as “a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). “[D]etailed allegations” are not necessary, but under
Rule 8(a) the pleading must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). This standard
“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 677 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must set
forth facts that, when construed favorably, establish (1) the deprivation of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) caused by a person
acting under the color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). A plaintiff must also allege “more than just mere negligence,” Fisher v.
3

City of Memphis, 234 F.3d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted), and must
establish the liability of each individual defendant by that person’s own conduct.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.
Municipalities are ineligible for Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity
Jinks v. Richland Cty., S.C., 538 U.S. 456, 466 (2003). However, “[a] municipality
faces § 1983 liability only when its execution of a policy or custom is the ‘moving
force’ behind the constitutional violation.” Deruso v. City of Detroit, 121 F. App'x
64, 65 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Sova v. City of Mt. Pleasant, 142 F.3d 898, 904 (6th
Cir. 1998)). And a city agency, such as its police department, is not a proper party
in a section 1983 action; rather, the municipality itself is the “real party in
interest.” Haverstick Enter., Inc. v. Fin. Fed. Credit, Inc., 32 F.3d 989, 992, n. 1
(6th Cir. 1994).
III.

Discussion

Because Plaintiff has failed to plead the existence of a municipal policy or
custom to show Monell liability and has made no allegations of any wrongdoing
against either the City of Detroit nor the Detroit Police Department, he has failed to
state a claim against them upon which relief may be granted. See Deruso, 121 F.
App’x at 65. In addition, as noted above, the police department is not a real party
in interest. Haverstick Enter., 32 F.3d at 992 n.1. Both the City and police
department must be dismissed from the action.
4

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Detective Posey also fail. The
complaint only describes Posey’s false testimony at Plaintiff’s probable cause
hearing, conduct for which the defendant is immune. “Although government
officials enjoy only qualified immunity as to their pretrial conduct, ‘all witnesses
— police officers as well as lay witness [sic] — are absolutely immune from civil
liability based on their trial testimony in judicial proceedings.’” Moldowan v. City
of Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 390 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S.
325, 328 (1983)). “A witness is entitled to testimonial immunity ‘no matter how
egregious or perjurious that testimony was alleged to have been.’” Id. (quoting
Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1001 (6th Cir. 1999)).
Moldowan’s reference to “pre-trial conduct” acknowledges that law
enforcement officials are entitled only to qualified immunity if they “falsify
affidavits,” Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 370 n.1 (2012) (citing Kalina v.
Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-31 (1997); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 340-45
(1986)), or “fabricate evidence[.]” Id. (citing Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S.
259, 272-76 (1993)). The Court finds, however, that Defendant Posey gave his
testimony at a judicial proceeding and that he is therefore entitled to absolute, not
qualified, immunity.
In so finding, the Court relies first on Plaintiff’s allegations, in which he
expressly refers to Defendant’s “testimony . . . at a probable cause hearing.”
5

(Compl. at 6, ECF No. 1, PageID 6.) While Plaintiff states that this occurred in
September 2016, the only hearing at which this was possible was his preliminary
examination, held in August 2016.1 (See Rule 5 materials in Plaintiff’s habeas case
in this Court: Coakley v. Christiansen, Case No. 19-10241, Register of Actions at
2, ECF No. 8-1, PageID 32.)2 One of the primary functions of the preliminary
examination is a determination of probable cause. People v. Henderson, 282 Mich.
App. 307, 312 (2009) (citing People v. Glass (After Remand), 464 Mich. 266, 277
(2001)). In Michigan, “a preliminary examination is a judicial proceeding[,]”
People v. Bellanca, 20 Mich. App. 1, 7 (1969), at which a witness enjoys the
“absolute[] privilege” of a witness in any judicial proceeding. Reno v. Chung, 220
Mich. App. 102, 106 (1996) (citing Meyer v. Hubbell, 117 Mich. App. 699, 709
(1982)).
A motion hearing held on October 7, 2016, explicitly addresses the August
preliminary examination. (See Case No. 19-10241, M. Hrg. Tr. 10/7/16, ECF No.
8-4.) The trial court heard a motion by the prosecutor, stating the lower court had

 No hearings took place during September 2016; the only event on the Register of
Actions that month was the Final Conference at which the trial court scheduled
dates for Plaintiff’s trial. (See Case No. 19-10241, Register of Actions at 2, ECF
No. 8-1, PageID 32; see also Final. Conf. Tr. 9/30/16, ECF No. 8-3.)
1

2

“Federal courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts of
record.” Harbison v. Bell, 408 F.3d 823, 842 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing
Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980)). 
6

erred in rejecting a charge of first-degree murder and seeking its reinstatement.3
(Id. at 2-3, PageID 106-07.) The court denied the prosecutor’s motion but
mentioned during the hearing “defendant’s statement to Officer or Detective
Posey” and its impact on the district court’s decision in that earlier proceeding. (Id.
at 3, 19, PageID 107, 123.)
The Court finds that the preliminary examination was a judicial proceeding
at which Defendant Posey gave testimony, and that he is entitled to absolute
immunity for that testimony. Accordingly, Defendant Posey must be dismissed.

IV.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
It is further ORDERED that an appeal from this decision would be frivolous
and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United

3

A Goecke motion permits the trial court to amend the information based on its
review of a lower court’s refusal to bind over on original charges raised by the
prosecution. People v. McGee, 258 Mich. App. 683, 689–90 (2003) (citing People
v. Goecke, 457 Mich. 442, 458–459 (1998)).

7

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). For the same reason, leave to appeal in forma
pauperis is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 13, 2019

s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

8