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.

Anjorin v. City of Detroit

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

March 31, 2015

STEPHEN ANJORIN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal corporation; CHESTER LOGAN, Detroit Police Chief; STEPHEN HODO, Detroit Police Officer; JASON MURPHY, Detroit Police Officer; STEVEN RATA, Detroit Police Officer; MATTHEW NEIHENGEN, Detroit Police Officer; Detroit Police SGT. PURIFOY; Detroit Police INV. BANKS; In their Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 42) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC 40)

Avern Cohn, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case concerns a claim of excessive use of force by several police officers of the Detroit Police Department, relating to incidents occurring in December 2010 and March 2011. In a seven-count amended complaint (Doc. 28), pro se plaintiff Stephen Anjorin (Plaintiff) is suing the City of Detroit (the City), as well as former Police Chief Chester Logan and several Detroit police officers in their individual and official capacities for:

Count I: Gross Negligence
Count II: Assault and Battery
Count III: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against All Defendants
Count IV: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against the City of Detroit
Count V: Supervisory Liability Against Chester Logan
Count VI: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Civil Rights
Count VII: False Arrest

Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 40)[1] and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 42) For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

At the outset, it must be noted that neither party has submitted a statement of material facts in support of their respective positions, nor is there a joint statement of material facts. The facts below are as detailed in the parties’ briefs, as supported by any exhibits provided.

A. December 23, 2010

According to Plaintiff, on December 23, 2010, Plaintiff arrived at his home to find a neighbor, Debra Brown, in his apartment. Plaintiff called 911 for help, saying that there was a break-in and entry. When police officers arrived, the unnamed officers told Plaintiff that they were there to investigate a report that Plaintiff was in possession of a gun. Plaintiff says that the officers asked Plaintiff to surrender the gun or be arrested. When Plaintiff denied knowledge of any gun, he says that the officers handcuffed him, battered and assaulted him by kicking him, hitting him in the bicep, twisting his arms, and placing him under a chokehold, and put him in the patrol vehicle for 47 minutes.

According to Defendants, police officers Rata and Neihengen were responding to a landlord-tenant complaint. Plaintiff, the landlord, stated that he would not restore power to Ms. Brown’s rental unit until she paid her back rent. Defendants state that Plaintiff was handcuffed and placed briefly into the patrol vehicle. Defendants state that after this incident, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Office of the Chief investigator. The matter was investigated, the officers were exonerated, and the file was closed.

B. March 11, 2011

Similarly, Plaintiff says that on March 11, 2011, he reported “the same suspect”- apparently Ms. Brown-for break-in and entry. He says that Detroit police officers knocked on Plaintiff’s door, told him he was under arrest, ...


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.