United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
In the case at hand, Plaintiff arrestee Joseph Bailey (“Plaintiff”), who was unsuccessfully prosecuted for armed robbery and felony firearm/ possession of a short barreled shotgun, filed this civil rights action against Defendants City of Ann Arbor, and Ann Arbor Police Detectives Christopher Fitzpatrick, William Stanford, and Michael Dortch (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also alleges various state law claims. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and for reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
On the evening of April 9, 2012, an armed robbery took place at the Broadway Liquor Store located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 2.) The robbery involved two perpetrators. One of the individuals is depicted as being a tall, thin, black male approximately 5’10” in height, wearing both a white coat and mask with “Spiderman” eyes and brandishing a short barreled shotgun. (Id. at Pg. ID 3.) His accomplice is described as being short in height, approximately 5’5”, and wearing a gray mask. (Id. at Pg. ID 2-3.) These unidentified individuals held the store clerk at gunpoint and took money from the cash drawer. (Id. at Pg. ID 2.)
On May 25, 2012, Detective Stanford received an anonymous tip implicating Plaintiff. (Id. at Pg. ID 3.) Plaintiff alleges that this information was then provided to Detective Dortch “without taking any confirming steps to authenticate the call or the information provided.” (Id.) That same day, Detectives Stanford and Fitzpatrick pursued the anonymous tip, and visited the residence of Plaintiff, located at 2523 Adrienne Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Id.; Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 10 at Pg. ID 65.) Defendants contend, and Plaintiff does not dispute, that the home is leased by Plaintiff’s mother, and that Plaintiff’s mother also occupies the residence. (Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 10 at Pg. ID 65.) Plaintiff alleges that “[d]espite the fact that Plaintiff was not at the residence, Defendants Fitzpatrick and Stanford unlawfully entered Plaintiff’s bedroom and conducted an unlawful search of same.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 3.) Further, he states in the complaint that “[a]s a result of the unlawful search and entry into Plaintiff’s bedroom, a skeleton hoodie was found, ” and that “the clothing allegedly seen in Plaintiff’s bedroom was not a direct match to the clothing [ ] worn by the alleged perpetrators of the party store robbery.” (Id. at Pg. ID 3–4.)
Plaintiff further asserts:
After unlawfully searching Plaintiff’s bedroom, on May 25, 2012, Defendant Stanford drafted an [a]ffidavit for a [s]earch [w]arrant. The [a]ffidavit was void of specific and/or reliable information which linked Plaintiff to any crime whatsoever. The Search Warrant was similarly defective on its face and was overbroad.
(Compl., ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 4.)
After initially searching the home, and thereafter obtaining a search warrant, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants returned to Plaintiff’s home and “unlawfully removed [a] black sweatshirt with a skeleton on it; black vest; and black jeans.” (Id.) Afterwards, Plaintiff was arrested and interviewed by Defendants Fitzpatrick and Stanford. (Id. at Pg. ID 4-5.) Plaintiff asserts that during the interview, he provided an alibi of his whereabouts at the time the robbery occurred, and that “Defendant Stanford deliberately spit on Plaintiff.” (Id. at Pg. ID 5.)
Further, Plaintiff asserts:
Defendant Fitzpatrick, at a minimum, was responsible for bring[ing] the bogus charges against Plaintiff [.]
All of the individually-named Defendants failed to actively investigate all leads, failed to inquire as to the legitimacy of any leads acquired, and failed to make inquiry into Plaintiff’s alibi which put him at a specific address, with a specific individual, at the specific time when the party store robbery occurred.
Despite checking out Plaintiff’s alibi, despite the fact that the clothes were not an exact match, and despite the fact that the shotgun recovered did not contain [P]laintiff’s prints, Defendants arrested and continued ...