James v. City of Detroit et al

Filing 46

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF NO. 32)
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 for Temporary Restraining
Order (“TRO”), filed May 11, 2018, and Defendant’s response, filed May 17,
2018. (ECF Nos. 32 & 36.) On May 29, 2018, this Court held a hearing on the
motion for TRO. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

1

On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for § 1983 violations, as
well as various state law claims. (ECF No. 1.) 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 have
shone 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.
Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a TRO to prevent Defendants’ retaliatory
conduct and from further harassment.
“Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary
remedies designed to protect the status quo pending final resolution of a lawsuit.”
Richardson v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, No. 13–cv–10234, 2013 WL 3367434, at *2
(E.D. Mich. July 5, 2013). The court must consider the following factors when
considering whether to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction: (1) whether the
2

movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant
would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) whether granting the
injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest
is served by issuance of the injunction. Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless
v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir.2008); see also In re DeLorean Motor
Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 1228 (6th Cir. 1985). “[T]hese factors simply guide the
discretion of the court; they are not meant to be rigid and unbending
requirements.” In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 855, 859 (6th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff has shown there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits as it
relates to the five tickets. 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
3

is required to permit the inference.” Vereecke v. Huron Valley School Dist., 609
F.3d 392, 401 (6th Cir. 2010).
It is undisputed that Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected conduct
when she filed this § 1983 lawsuit. See Thaddeus-X v, 175 F.3d at 396. The five
tickets issued on April 6, 2017 occurred within a sufficient temporal proximity to
infer retaliatory conduct. Although judgment was entered for two of the five
citations, the three misdemeanors were dismissed without prejudice. Further,
Plaintiff alleges she was not operating a motor vehicle at the time she received the
misdemeanor tickets and that they were delivered to her front door. Although the
named Defendants were not involved with any of the citations, it is plausible that
Plaintiff was targeted because of her pending lawsuit.
However, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has shown a strong likelihood
of success on the merits as it relates to her other claims. Specifically, she has not
shown the blight warning was improper—that animal waste was not in her lawn
and her trashcans were properly placed—and that the spotlights were shone in her
window to harass or intimidate her or were unrelated to any investigations.
Likewise, Plaintiff has not shown there is immediate and irreparable injury if
relief is not granted. Specifically, there has been no interaction between Plaintiff
and the named Defendants since the filing of the Complaint. Further, there is no
indication that Plaintiff has been given any citations since those given more than a
4

year ago, which resulted in judgment or dismissal. Also, there is no indication that
Plaintiff has continued to receive blight warnings or has been ticketed as a result of
those warnings. None of what Plaintiff complains of merits a TRO.
Finally, the harm in issuing the injunction is the potential interference with
legitimate police work. Although Plaintiff has a suit pending against the City, she
is not free to engage in conduct that is contrary to the City Code, and therefore, the
public interest is not served by the issuance of the TRO.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 18, 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 18, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

5