Davis et al v. Detroit, City of et al, No. 2:2015cv10547 - Document 110 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 90 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis et al v. Detroit, City of et al Doc. 110 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TIMOTHY DAVIS and HATEMA DAVIS, Case No. 15-10547 Plaintiffs, Paul D. Borman United States District Judge v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. ______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ARTHUR LEAVELLS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Timothy Davis and Hatema Davis allege that their home was wrongfully raided by officers of the Detroit Narcotics Unit on December 27, 2013; that they were subject to unlawful arrest and detention during and after the raid; and that their property, which included a quantity of marijuana plants and related byproducts, was wrongfully confiscated in the course of the raid. (See ECF No. 21 at 2-4.) Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and also bring a claim against Defendant City of Detroit under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), based on allegations of the City’s inadequate training and/or supervision of its agents and employees regarding the constitutional rights of citizens. (See ECF No. 21 at 4-6.) Defendant Arthur Leavells filed the present Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on July 14, 2016. (ECF No. 90.) In that Motion, Defendant Leavells asserts that certain violations of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL §333.26421 et seq., on Plaintiffs’ part were discovered in the course of the raid on December 27, 2013, and argues that those violations bar Plaintiffs from 1 Dockets.Justia.com collecting damages for their confiscated marijuana and associated property under Michigan’s wrongful-conduct rule. (See ECF No. 90 at 12-16.) In their Response to the Motion, Plaintiffs counter that Defendant Leavells has cited no authority supporting the application of this rule to their federal constitutional claims. (See ECF No. 94 at 7.) Defendant Leavells clarifies in his Reply that the Motion “seeks only partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims for damages on their ‘lost’ marijuana.” (ECF No. 95 at 1.) Plaintiffs stated in their Response, however, that the “instant action does not allege any claims under state law.” (ECF No. 94 at 7 n.1.) Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated on the record at the status conference on January 20, 2017 that Plaintiffs have not asserted any substantive state-law claims in this action. Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to dismiss such claims, as they do not exist. For this reason, Defendant Leavells’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman Paul D. Borman United States District Judge Dated: January 24, 2017 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on January 24, 2017. s/D. Tofil Deborah Tofil, Case Manager 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
