Hodges v. State of Michigan

Filing 16

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 8 Motion for Protective Order; denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY HODGES,
Case No. 13-12293
Plaintiff,
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.
/
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter came before the court on defendant State of Michigan's July 24, 2013 motions to
dismiss and for protective order and plaintiff Larry Hodges' August 19, 2013 motion for summary
disposition. Responses were filed to the dispositive motions; no oral argument was heard.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Hodges filed a pro se complaint in this court May 22, 2013, alleging that his civil
rights were violated when all three tiers of Michigan's judiciary ruled against him in his state court
action. In that lawsuit, Plaintiff claimed that after he was taken to Henry Ford Hospital ("HFH"),
a nurse mistook him for an armed trespasser and hospital security assaulted him. HFH filed a
motion to dismiss, and the Wayne County Circuit Court granted the motion and subsequently denied
Hodges' motion for relief from judgment. Hodges then unsuccessfully appealed to the Michigan
Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.
Plaintiff Hodges filed this federal action, naming the State of Michigan as the only defendant.
He claims he was not allowed to litigate his case because he is African American and was

unrepresented by counsel. The State of Michigan has moved to dismiss the complaint, and Plaintiff
has moved for summary disposition, which this court will interpret as a motion for summary
judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
It is well-established that the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars
federal lawsuits against states unless that immunity has been abrogated or waived by the state. See
Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999).
In this case although Plaintiff does not expressly state the legal grounds for his claims, it
appears as though he is advancing a claim for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Section 1983, however, does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar because a state is not
deemed a "person" under §§ 1983 or 1985. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 71
(1989). Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and must be
dismissed.
Even if the complaint were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, it would otherwise be
barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, which "stands for the simple . . . proposition that lower
federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review a case litigated and decided in state court . . . ."
Anderson v. Charter Twp. of Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 492 (6th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff Hodges'
complaint is an attempt to have his state court case reviewed by this court. However, this court lacks
jurisdiction to do so. Accordingly, on this basis, too, the court must grant Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
For the reasons stated above, the court cannot grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
under Rule 56.

2

ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff Hodges' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that defendant State of Michigan's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that defendant State of Michigan's motion for protective order is
DENIED AS MOOT.

s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: August 30, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, August 30, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

3