James v. City of Detroit et al

Filing 45

OPINION and ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Amend Complaint to Include Additional Factual Allegations (Amended Complaint should be filed by 6/29/18). Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

PageID.801

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FANESTER JAMES,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 17-10506
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation,
CHIEF JAMES CRAIG, SAMUEL PIONESSA,
REGINALD BEASLEY, NICO HURD,
ALANNA MITCHELL, JUAN DAVIS,
JOHNNY FOX, SAMUEL GALLOWAY,
JASON CLARK, AND LAMAR WILLIAMS,
in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTS (ECF NO. 30)
This lawsuit arises from a police raid of Plaintiff’s residence in Detroit, MI
on or about September 6, 2016. Plaintiff alleges violations of her Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as various state law
claims. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to
Include Additional Factual Allegations and Counts, filed May 11, 2018, and
Defendant’s response, filed May 11, 2018. (ECF Nos. 30 & 33.) For the reasons
that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion.

1

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

I.

PageID.802

Page 2 of 7

Factual and Procedural Background
On or about September 6, 2016, while in her home, Plaintiff, a 59-year-old

woman, heard a noise on her front porch and went to investigate the source of the
noise. (ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 4-5.) Through the glass window of her front door,
Plaintiff noticed the Individual Defendants on her front porch wearing black
facemasks and t-shirts that read “Police.” (Id. at Pg ID 5.) According to Plaintiff,
as she stood directly in front of her door, she made eye contact with one of the
officers, who she believed to be either Defendant Reginald Beasley or Nico Hurd
(“Defendant Officer #1”). (Id.) Despite making eye contact with Plaintiff,
Defendant Officer #1 kicked in Plaintiff’s front door, striking Plaintiff in the face
and effectively knocking her into the wall in her front hallway. (Id.) Plaintiff
asserts she was placed in handcuffs and instructed to sit in the living room while
the Individual Defendants searched her home. (Id. at Pg ID 6.) While handcuffed
and sitting in her living room, blood began to drip from a large gash above her eye
that was caused when Defendant Officer #1 kicked the door into Plaintiff’s face.
(Id.)
After the search was complete but prior to the Individual Defendants leaving
the residence, Defendant Officer #1 took Plaintiff into another room, allegedly
threatening her and stating, “I want to make sure that we are on the same page
because I do not want to have to take you to jail.” (Id.) Plaintiff believed this was
2

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

PageID.803

Page 3 of 7

an attempt to cover up the injuries Defendant Officer #1 caused her. Defendant
Officer # 1 then told Plaintiff she did not need an ambulance and “[t]his never
happened. You fell and hit your head before we got here, right?” (Id. at Pg ID 67.) Later, Defendant Officer #1 instructed Plaintiff to change her shirt because he
did not want to see blood and took a photo of Plaintiff following her shirt change.
(Id. at Pg ID 7.)
According to Plaintiff, after the Individual Defendants left her residence, she
found a document titled “Search Warrant and Affidavit.” (Id.) It stated:
“‘Seller#1: B/M/20, 5’10” 170 lbs., medium complexion, wearing a white t-short
[sic] and blue jeans,’ for narcotics, narcotics paraphernalia and all items uses [sic]
for the sale, manufacture and distribution of controlled substances.” (Id. at Pg ID
7-8.)
On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for § 1983 violations, as
well as various state law claims. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff names eleven Defendants
in her Complaint filed February 16, 2017: (1) the City of Detroit, (2) Chief James
Craig (“Chief Craig”), (3) Samuel Pionessa, (4) Reginald Beasley, (5) Nico Hurd,
(6) Alanna Mitchell, (7) Juan Davis, (8) Johnny Fox, (9) Samuel Galloway, (10)
Jason Clark, and (11) Lamar Williams, in their individual and official capacities.
(Id.) On November 7, 2017, this Court granted, in part, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed Chief Craig.
3

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

PageID.804

Page 4 of 7

According to Plaintiff, since the filing of the lawsuit, the City of Detroit has
taken retaliatory actions against her. (ECF No. 32 at Pg ID 340.) Plaintiff alleges
that on April 6, 2017 Defendants issued Plaintiff three misdemeanor citations,
“drove while license not valid or improper license,” “driving unregistered or
untitled vehicle,” and “no insurance misdemeanor.” (Id. at 346-47.) She also
received two civil infractions for having “defective or missing equipment.” (Id. at
347.) Plaintiff claims the charges were dismissed for “lack of merit.” Id. On
March 26, 2018, Plaintiff received a “blight violation warning” for failing to
remove animal waste from her lawn and improper placement of her trashcans.
(Id.) Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants shine the spotlights from their patrol
cars through her windows and have done so five to six times since the filing of this
lawsuit and as recently as thirty days ago.
II.

Applicable Law & Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs the courts to “freely grant[]”

leave to amend “where justice so requires.” This is because, as the Supreme Court
has advised, “[i]f the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff
may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his
claim on the merits.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). However, a
motion to amend a complaint should be denied if the amendment is brought in bad
faith or for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to the opposing
4

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

PageID.805

Page 5 of 7

party, or would be futile. Id. An amendment is futile when the proposed
amendment fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and thus is
subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins.
Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000).
There is no evidence that the amendment was brought in bad faith or for a
dilatory purpose. The amendment will not result in undue delay or prejudice.
Furthermore, the amendment would not be futile. A § 1983 retaliation claim
requires the following showing: “(1) the plaintiff engaged in constitutionally
protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would
deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and
(3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s protected
conduct.” Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 723 (6th Cir. 2010)
(citing Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 717 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Thaddeus-X v.
Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc))). The Sixth Circuit has
instructed, “our case law can fairly be characterized as recognizing the possibility
that, on a particular set of facts, extremely close temporal proximity could permit
an inference of retaliatory motive, but also recognizing that often evidence in
addition to temporal proximity is required to permit the inference.” Vereecke v.
Huron Valley School Dist., 609 F.3d 392, 401 (6th Cir. 2010).

5

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

PageID.806

Page 6 of 7

It is undisputed that Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected conduct
when she filed this § 1983 lawsuit. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 396
(6th Cir. 1999). The five tickets issued on April 6, 2017 occurred within a
sufficient temporal proximity to infer retaliatory conduct. All five of the citations
were dismissed, and according to Plaintiff, the citations she received for her
window tint and license plate were improper because she had nothing changed
since the issuance of the ticket. Further, Plaintiff alleges she was not operating a
motor vehicle at the time she received the ticket and, instead, was in her home.
Although the named Defendants were not involved with any of the citations, it is
plausible that Plaintiff was targeted because of her pending lawsuit.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is not seeking to have her two judgments
invalidated, the Heck doctrine is not implicated. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S.
521, 533 (2011) (“When ‘a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,’ the Court held, § 1983 is not an
available remedy. Ibid. ‘But if . . . the plaintiff’s action, even if successful, will not
demonstrate the invalidity of [his conviction or sentence], the [ § 1983] action
should be allowed to proceed . . . .’”.).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to Include
Additional Factual Allegations and Counts (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED.
6

Case 4:17-cv-10506-LVP-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 06/15/18

PageID.807

Page 7 of 7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file the Amended
Complaint, no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 15, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, June 15, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

7