HEARD v. Detroit Public Schools Community District et al, No. 2:2019cv10865 - Document 25 (E.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

Download PDF
Dockets.Justia.com DESTINY HEARD DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT a/k/a DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND CHARLES BRAZIEL ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARD v. Detroit Public Schools Community District et al GRANTED IN PART Doc. 25 DENIED IN PART I. Background1 Id See Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id See See Cass Tech-FTV-210-2nd Flr.-Near Bookstore-facing South . Id See See id See id See id See II. Legal Standard Villegas v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville see also See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Selby v. Caruso see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Ellington v. City of E. Cleveland Harlow v. Fitzgerald Everson v. Leis Harlow Tolan v. Cotton Pearson v. Callahan III. Discussion See Id See Odom v. Wayne County a. Section 1983 claims against Defendant Braziel. Graham v. Connor Id Id Id Id Graham v. Connor Id Id Id Goodwin v. City of Painesville Graham Id Id Id Goodwin Id Id Graham Id Id Goodwin Id of Sonora Id Grawey v. Drury see also C.B. v. City Id Eldridge v. City of Warren Id Id Id Id Id Eldridge Id Id See id Id Township Caie v. West Bloomfield Rudlaff v. Gillispie Rudlaff v. Gillispie Graham Id Hagans v. Franklin Cnty. Sheriff’s Office Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati Rudlaff See Cockrell i. Defendant Braziel tackling Plaintiff (first use of force). Id Id Id Graham See Eldridge Brandenburg v. Cureton see also Baynes v. Cleland Goodwin Humphrey Police Dept. see also Austin v. Redford Tp. Austin v. Redford Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id see also Gradisher v. City of Akron Ferchak v. Burton Ferchak Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Gradisher Id Id Ferchak before in response Id See Eldridge Id single See Eldridge Goodwin See Id ii. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Braziel threw her against the wall (second use of force). Rudlaff Id Id Scott v. Harris See Gradisher See id iii. Defendant Braziel pepper spraying Plaintiff (third use of force). See Eldridge See See id Harris v. City of Cadillac Id Id Id Id Id Id Id Harris Harris Harris Harris Id See Eldridge See iv. Plaintiff claims that Defendant engaged in malicious prosecution. Kinkus v. Village of Yorkville, Ohio Braziel Id Skousen v. Brighton High Sch. McKinley v. City of Mansfield Kinkus Id Id Id Id See Kinkus b. Section 1983 claims against Defendant Detroit Public Schools. Id Id Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. Of New York Monell Id Id Monell Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t. See See Id Monell Garner Harris v. City of Cadillac Harris de facto de facto Id Id de facto Id Id Harris Id Id de facto See Harris Monell c. Intentional tort claims against Defendant Braziel. Odom See id See Id Id Odom v. Wayne County Id Id Id Id Odom Id Id Odom See Odom Odom Id Id Id Id Id Odom Cooper Blackman v. Compare Odom Ross with Graham CONCLUSION GRANTED IN PART DENIED IN PART GRANTED IN PART GRANTED o o o GRANTED GRANTED DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE DENIED IN PART DENIED o o DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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.