Bowles v. Sabree et al

Filing 73

OPINION AND ORDER denying 43 Motion for Reconsideration and Clarifying the Dismissal of Claims Against Defendant Eric Sabree. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (CShr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TONYA BOWLES, for herself
and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 23-cv-10973
(Previous Case No. 20-12838)
Honorable Linda V. Parker

ERIC SABREE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFYING THE DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANT ERIC SABREE
On January 14, 2022, this Court issued a decision finding Defendant Eric
Sabree entitled to qualified immunity to the extent he is sued in his individual
capacity, and Defendant Wayne County and Sabree, to the extent he is sued in his
official capacity as Wayne County Treasurer, not entitled to sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment. See Op. & Order, Bowles v. Sabree, No. 20-cv12838 (E.D. Mich. filed Jan. 14, 2022), ECF No. 47. Although this resulted in the
dismissal with prejudice of the individual-capacity claims against Sabree, this was
not expressly stated in the decision. Defendants appealed the Court’s sovereign
immunity holdings.

On April 10, 2024, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
as to Wayne County but reversed as to Sabree. Bowles v. Sabree, No. 22-1912,
2024 WL 1550833 (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024). The appellate court concluded that
Sabree was acting as an arm of the State with respect to his foreclosure on taxdelinquent properties and, therefore, was entitled to Eleventh Amendment
immunity. Id. at *3. The Sixth Circuit issued its mandate on May 2, 2024.
Shortly after the matter was remanded, and pursuant to the Sixth Circuit’s
decision, this Court entered an order dismissing the claims against Sabree in his
official capacity “with prejudice.” (ECF No. 38 at PageID. 602.) The Court also
terminated him from the action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration,
arguing that the dismissal should have been “without prejudice.” (ECF No. 40.)
The Court agreed, and entered an amended order reflecting that correction. (ECF
No. 41.)
The matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration in which they argue that the Court’s original instinct—to dismiss
with prejudice—was accurate. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiffs responded to the motion.
(ECF No. 44.) Defendants filed a reply brief. (ECF No. 45.)
The Sixth Circuit has advised that dismissals for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, such as dismissals based on sovereign immunity, “should normally be
without prejudice, since by definition the court lacks power to reach the merits of
2

the case.” Thompson v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., 748 F. App’x
6, 11 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d 514, 522 (6th Cir.
2004); see also Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 67 (6th Cir. 2005). The Sixth
Circuit has recognized that, “in rare circumstances, . . . a district court may use its
inherent power to dismiss with prejudice (as a sanction for misconduct) even a case
over which it lacks jurisdiction.” Ernst, 427 F.3d at 367 (quoting Mitan v. Int’l Fid.
Ins. Co., 23 F. App’x 292, 297 (6th Cir. 2001)) (brackets omitted). However, this
Court located only two circumstances where the Sixth Circuit has found a
dismissal with prejudice warranted.
The first is where it is used as a sanction for a plaintiff’s misconduct. See
Mitan, 23 F. App’x at 297 (upholding the district court’s dismissal with prejudice
as a sanction for the plaintiff’s “repeated abuse of the judicial process when it
prohibited him from introducing further related actions”); see also Bellwether
Music Festival, LLC v. Acton, No. 20-cv-3279, 2020 WL 3869479, at *2-3 (S.D.
Ohio July 9, 2020) (collecting cases finding dismissals with prejudice appropriate
due to misconduct and, finding no misconduct in the case before it, concluding that
it should be dismissed without prejudice). The second is where the plaintiff’s
claims are “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of
merit, or no longer open to discussion,” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th
Cir. 1999) (finding a dismissal with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under Federal
3

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) appropriate where the complaint is “patently
frivolous”). Neither circumstance is presented here.
Defendants’ cited authority, Montano v. Grant, No. 21-1303, 2021 U.S.
App. LEXIS 31125 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 2021), does not suggest that there are other
scenarios where a prejudicial dismissal is warranted. There, the Sixth Circuit
found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an injunction
enjoining the plaintiff from filing any additional complaints after finding the
defendant judges entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id. at *3. However,
the injunction and prejudicial dismissal were due to the plaintiff having “filed
seven prior lawsuits, all of them deemed meritless or frivolous, and that the most
recent of those dismissals included a warning that the court might bar [the plaintiff]
from further filings without court permission.” Id. Consistent with the above
caselaw, the bar to future filings was a sanction for the plaintiff’s repeated abuses
of the judicial process.
Defendants’ assertion that a suit in state court against Sabree in his official
capacity would be subject to dismissal also does not persuade the Court that it
should dismiss the official capacity claims against him here with prejudice.
Defendants are essentially asking the Court to make a merits determination about
future state-court claims. There are several reasons why this Court lacks the power
to evaluate the merits of those potential claims. Notably, having found no subject
4

matter jurisdiction over the claims here, the Court may not opine on their merit,
much less their future merit.
For these reasons, the Court is not persuaded that it committed a palpable
defect when it corrected the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against Sabree in his
official capacity to be without prejudice. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration
is, therefore, DENIED. To be clear, however, the claims against Sabree in his
individual capacity were dismissed based on qualified immunity. That dismissal
was with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Date: March 5, 2025

s/LINDA V. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5