Donald v. Cieszkowski et al

Filing 18

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing. **PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR IMPORTANT DEADLINES** Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLEN DONALD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-12190
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CRAIG CIESZKOWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and has concluded that it would benefit
from supplemental briefing as described below.
There appears to be a conflict between some of the evidence relied upon by
Plaintiff and some of the factual findings made by the state-court trial judge in
Plaintiff’s state-court criminal trial. By way of example, Plaintiff testified that when
the Defendants crossed the street and confronted him, they (1) did not say anything
to him before tasing him and (2) more specifically, did not warn him to put his hands
behind his back before tasking him (see Pl.’s Dep. at 49-50, 92-93, ECF #14-2 at Pg.
ID 263, 273-74), but the state-court judge found that before Plaintiff was tased, he
“did not obey the lawful command to turn around and put his hands behind his back.”

1

(State Trial Ct. Findings, ECF # 12-5 at Pg. ID 143.) Similarly, Seretha Greeley
testified in Plaintiff’s state-court trial that Plaintiff did not resist at all – indeed, that
he was not even conscious – after he was tased (see S. Greeley Trial Testimony at
216-18, ECF 14-5 at Pg. ID 308-09), but the state-court trial judge found that after
Plaintiff was tased, he “continued to struggle with the three officers as they
attempted to handcuff him” and “continued to resist the efforts of the three police
officers to put him in the police car.” (State Trial Ct. Findings, ECF # 12-5 at Pg. ID
143-44.)
In supplemental briefs, the parties should address whether, in the context of
the pending motion for summary judgment, the Court is bound by the state-court’s
factual findings or whether the Court must credit Plaintiff’s evidence when there is
a conflict between the state court’s factual findings and evidence cited by Plaintiff.
If Defendants contend that the Court is bound by the state court’s findings under the
doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, Defendants shall cite case law
supporting that contention – preferably Sixth Circuit authority applying those
doctrines (or approving application of those doctrines) in the context of a Section
1983 action that follows a state-court criminal conviction, if such authority exists.
If Plaintiff contends that the Court must accept his evidence over contradictory
findings by the state court, he shall cite authority supporting that contention.

2

Defendants shall file their supplemental brief by not later than May 3, 2019.
Plaintiffs shall file their responsive supplemental brief by not later than May 13,
2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 24, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on April 24, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3