Bowles v. Macomb Community College et al

Filing 63

ORDER Dismissing Count V of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Case 3:20-cv-13175-RHC-KGA ECF No. 63, PageID.1389 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________
GLENN BOWLES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 20-13175

MACOMB COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING COUNT V OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Glenn Bowles filed his First Amended Complaint,
which alleges due process violations and state law claims stemming from his dismissal
as a police academy instructor. (ECF No. 12.) Since that time, the court has granted two
motions to dismiss brought by various Defendants and recently denied Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint. As the court noted in its most recent
order, the only remaining claims are “two substantive due process claims against
Defendants [Elizabeth] Darga and the Sheriff’s Office (Counts IV and V), and a libel
claim against Defendant Darga (Count XII).” (ECF No. 60, PageID.1362.)
The court held a status conference on May 5, 2022, during which the parties
discussed the entry of a scheduling order and identified each cause of action as to each
remaining defendant. At the conference, the parties decided that Count V should be
dismissed because the Macomb County Sheriff’s Office is not amenable to suit under
42 U.S.C. § 1983; the court agrees. See, e.g., Gray v. Boose, No. 4:22-CV-10100, 2022
WL 662294, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2022) (Kumar, J.) (“It is well-settled under

Case 3:20-cv-13175-RHC-KGA ECF No. 63, PageID.1390 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3

Michigan law that county jails and sheriff’s departments are not legal entities amenable
to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Vine v. Cty. of Ingham, 884 F. Supp. 1153, 1158
(W.D. Mich. 1995) (citing Bayer v. Macomb Cty. Sheriff, 29 Mich. App. 185 N.W.2d 40,
41 (1970)) (agreeing with the Ingham County Sheriff Department that it is “not a legal
entity subject to suit” in Michigan). However, to the extent Plaintiff sought to name
Macomb County as a defendant for his substantive due process claim, that claim
survives by virtue of Count IV, which names Defendant Darga in both her individual
capacity and her official capacity as the Undersheriff of the Macomb County Sheriff’s
Office. See, e.g., Hopper v. Plummer, 887 F.3d 744, 761 n.4 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985)) (noting that official-capacity suits
“generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which
an officer is an agent”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Count V of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12,
PageID.275) is DISMISSED. Three of Plaintiff’s claims remain: two substantive due
process claims under § 1983 against Defendant Darga in her individual capacity and
against Macomb County (Count IV), and a state law libel claim against Defendant Darga
(Count XII).
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/

Dated: May 10, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, May 10, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner

2

/

Case 3:20-cv-13175-RHC-KGA ECF No. 63, PageID.1391 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
S:\Cleland\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\20-13175.BOWLES.OrderDismissingCountV.MAZ.docx

3