United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ARNOLD D. DUNCHOCK, Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF CORUNNA, by CHARLES KERRIDGE, Mayor, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 13)
AVERN COHN, District Judge.
This purports to be a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case asserting claims under the First and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, claims that defendant, the City of Corunna by Charles Kerridge, the Mayor (the City), has retaliated against him for speaking out against the City and has taken his property. At issue appear to be three parcels of property located in the City. The City has apparently issued notices to the owners of the parcels following an inspection, stating that the parcels are unsafe and in need of repair. The amended complaint contains the following counts, phrased by plaintiff as follows:
Count II Defendant violated plaintiff's rights pursuant to 42 United States Code Section 1983 (free speech)
Count III Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations set forth in Count II but seeks the same relief based on general tort law, pursuant to Michigan law
Count IV Plaintiff should be granted injunctive relief against the defendant wrongfully gaining ownership of the real property set forth herein.
Before the Court is the City's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff initially filed this action in Shiawasssee County Circuit Court. The City removed the case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1) Plaintiff filed a paper titled "Plaintiff's Objection To Removal" (Doc. 5). The Court construed the paper as a motion to remand and required Defendant to file a response. See (Doc. 6). Subsequently, plaintiff filed an amended motion to remand. (Doc. 9).
The Court denied plaintiff's objection to removal and his amended motion to remand, stating that
What can be gleaned from the complaint and subsequently filed papers, however, is that Plaintiff claims Defendant retaliated against him for speaking out against Defendant. Plaintiff claims a violation of his First and Fifth Amendment rights. Because Plaintiff alleges violations of the Constitution, the Court has subject-matter-jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The City then filed the instant motion for summary judgment. The City contends that plaintiff lacks standing because he is not the owner of two of the three parcels and no adverse action has been taken by the City regarding the third parcel. The City also contends that plaintiff's claims of retaliation and taking lack merit as all of the City's actions with respect to the parcels of property have been done in accordance with the law.
Plaintiff has filed a response. As best as can be gleaned,  plaintiff withdraws his claim under § 1983. He also says that he wants his claims to be heard in state court as part of ...