Trevino v. Teachout et al

Filing 42

OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL DARIO TREVINO,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-14338
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
MICHAEL TEACHOUT, et al,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
JNET’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Defendant Jackson Narcotics Enforcement Team’s
motion for summary judgment. The court heard oral argument on January 31,
2018, and took the matter under advisement. For the reasons explained below,
Defendant’s motion is granted.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff Daniel Dario Trevino alleges several counts of unlawful search and
seizure against Defendants Michael Teachout, Craig Edmondson, Amy Bretes, and
the Jackson Narcotics Enforcement Team (“JNET”). Defendant JNET seeks
dismissal or summary judgment, primarily because it contends that it is not a
juridical entity capable of being sued.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Whether JNET is a juridical entity capable of being sued is determined by
state law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). JNET was created pursuant to the Urban
Cooperation Act, M.C.L. 124.501 et seq., and an interlocal agreement between the
Michigan Department of State Police, Jackson County, the City of Jackson, and
Blackman Township. See Def.’s Ex. 1. The Urban Cooperation Act (“UCA”)
provides that
An interlocal agreement may provide for a separate legal
entity to administer or execute the agreement which may
be a commission, board, or council constituted pursuant
to the agreement. If an interlocal agreement does not
expressly provide for a separate legal entity, then a
separate legal entity shall not be created.
M.C.L. 124.507(1) (emphasis added). Pursuant to the UCA, the “separate legal
entity may sued and be sued in its own name.” M.C.L. 124.507(2).
The interlocal agreement governing JNET provides that “the participating
entities do not intend by this agreement to establish this task force or its command
board as a separate legal or administrative entity under Section 7(1) of the Urban
Cooperation Act, MCL 124.507(1) and have not therefore provided or otherwise
established such an entity by the terms of this agreement.” Def.’s Ex. 1.
The terms of the interlocal agreement expressly provide that JNET is not a
separate legal entity. Under the UCA, if “an interlocal agreement does not
-2-

expressly provide for a separate legal entity, then a separate legal entity shall not
be created.” M.C.L. 124.507(1). Although Plaintiff argues that JNET behaves as a
separate entity, he has not provided authority suggesting that this court may ignore
the clear statutory and contractual language to the contrary.
Because JNET is not a separate legal entity capable of being sued, the court
must dismiss JNET from this action. See, e.g., Boykin v. Van Buren Twp., 479
F.3d 444, 450 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of city police department).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant JNET’s motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: February 6, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on this date, February 6, 2018, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-