Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kendrick v. Daniel

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

March 6, 2015

Charles Kendrick, Plaintiff,
v.
William B. Daniel, Peter Jon Von Hoek, Kym Worthy, Michael Lehto, the Detroit Police Department, the State of Michigan, and the Internal Revenue Service, Defendants.

David R. Grand, Mag. Judge

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURE [5 & 9], GRANTING HIS MOTION TO AMEND [8], AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

JUDITH E. LEVY, United States District Judge

I. Introduction

This matter is pending before the Court on plaintiff Charles Kendrick’s pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Also pending before the Court are plaintiff’s motions for discovery, to amend the complaint, and for disclosure of information. (Dkts. 5, 8, & 9). Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan. The defendants are: William B. Daniel, plaintiff’s criminal defense attorney in state court; Peter Jon Von Hoek, plaintiff’s appellate attorney in state court; Kym Worthy, Prosecutor for Wayne County; Michael Lehto, an assistant Wayne County prosecutor; the Detroit Police Department and unnamed officers and investigators for the Department; the State of Michigan; and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and its administrative staff.

II. Background

a. The Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that Detroit police officers arrested him on the basis of hearsay and then coerced him into making a confession, despite his requests for an attorney. Defendant William B. Daniel represented plaintiff at his preliminary examination. Plaintiff was bound over to state circuit court on a charge of murder and subsequently convicted, apparently after pleading guilty.

Plaintiff claims that Mr. Daniel coerced him to plead guilty even though he is innocent. He also claims that Mr. Daniel failed to (1) investigate his case, (2) file necessary motions, (3) provide plaintiff with discovery materials, (4) subject the prosecution’s case to adversarial testing, (5) meet with plaintiff to discuss trial strategy, (6) exercise due diligence and devote reasonable time to plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Von Hoek, his appellate counsel, also failed to conduct an investigation or provide him with discovery and necessary materials. According to plaintiff, Mr. Von Hoek filed a defective appeal challenging only plaintiff’s sentence and refused to allow plaintiff to submit a supplemental brief.

Plaintiff seeks money damages, a writ of habeas corpus, and immediate release from custody. He also wants the Court to hold the Detroit Police Department and its officers accountable for his wrongful arrest and subsequent conviction. Plaintiff, furthermore, wants the courts, administrative agencies, and their staffs to be held responsible for frustrating his attempts to obtain relief.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not explain his claims against Worthy, Lehto, the State of Michigan, or the IRS.

B. The Motions

To the extent plaintiff’s motion for discovery seeks information to support his application to proceed without prepayment of fee and costs, those issues are now moot given Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recent order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 10). The motion also seeks an order enjoining correctional officials from harassing and searching plaintiff, changing his housing assignment without the Court’s permission, restricting his visits, and interfering with his mail and access to a telephone.

In his motion to amend, plaintiff adds details to his original statement of facts and reiterates his claim that defendants Daniel and Von Hoek provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, he notes that Daniel failed to investigate the criminal histories of two of the state’s witnesses and failed to challenge hearsay testimony. (Dkt. 8 at 7). He also seeks to add information to show that Von Hoek was “unskilled and unlearned of the law… and not familiar with motions, practice, and pleadings.” (Id. at 2). Both of these failures, he alleges, contributed to the prejudice against him at trial and on appeal. (Id. at 4). The motion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.