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.

Myers v. Fitzgerald

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 29, 2016

MARSHON MYERS, Plaintiff,
v.
CYNTHIA FITZGERALD, et al. Defendants.

          Marshon Myers, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Angie Leffler, Defendant, represented by Cori E. Barkman, MI Dept of Atty Gen Corrections Division.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT LEFFLER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 34)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.

         I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should grant Defendant Angie Leffler's motion for summary judgment. (DE 34.)

         II. REPORT

         A. Background

         Plaintiff, Marshon Myers, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis on January 16, 2014. (DE 1 and 2.) The Court granted the application on January 22, 2014. (DE 4.) At the time, Plaintiff was a state prisoner, housed at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility. Since then, Plaintiff has been released and is living at a private address in Michigan. (DE 28.)

         Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD"), 18 U.S.C. § 2, Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.601. He initially named eleven Defendants, but ten have been dismissed. The only remaining Defendant is Angie Leffler, who is the Records Officer Supervisor at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility. (DE 34-2 at ¶ 1.) Defendant Leffler avers that part of her duties include processing IAD requests. (DE 34-2 at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Leffler violated his rights under the IAD by failing to properly submit paperwork to the Cook County Prosecutor's office after receiving a request from him to do so.

         According to Plaintiff, a "detainer" was lodged against him by the Riverdale Police (Illinois) on March 29, 2013. (DE 1 at ¶ 8 and page 9.) He became aware of the detainer on April 21, 2013.[1] (DE 34-5 at 5.) Thereafter, he submitted a written request to the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") records office, asking that the Riverdale prosecutor's office be notified that he was incarcerated in Michigan. (DE 1 at ¶ 9.) He testified that he sent several kites to the records office supervisor, but received no response. (DE 34-5 at 6.)

         On May 7, 2013, Teri Taylor, the Records Officer Supervisor at the Egeler Reception and Guidance Center, sent a letter to the Riverdale Police Department to ascertain how it planned to proceed with Plaintiff's pending charge. (DE 1 at 12.) Ms. Taylor informed Plaintiff that she was awaiting a response to the letter, but that she was waiting to file the IAD paperwork because she did not know the prosecutor's full address. (DE 34-5 at 6.) Plaintiff was apparently transferred to the Cooper Street Facility on May 24, 2013, and thereafter Defendant Leffler took over the handling of the IAD paperwork. (Id. at ¶ 16.)

         When Defendant Leffler did not receive a response from the Riverdale Police Department, she contacted the Cook County Prosecutor's Office and "received information that the prosecutor's office would not be extraditing Plaintiff and did not wish to pursue a formal detainer against him." (DE 34-2 at ¶ 5.) On June 18, 2013, she sent a kite response to Plaintiff stating the following:

Per Tom Driscoll the Prosecuting Attorney of Riverdale IL. They will not extradite you on the charges. They are changing the warrant to in state pick up only. Therefore I have revoked your detainer on the pending charges.[2]

(DE 1 at 34.) Defendant Leffler further avers that she believed that no additional action was required because there was no detainer to trigger the IAD procedures. (DE 34-2 at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff, however, contends that Defendant Leffler did not have authority to render such a judgment call in this matter and was only required to file the IAD paperwork with the State of Illinois. (DE 1 at 6.) He contends that, if the IAD paperwork had been properly filed, the charges would have been resolved- and likely dropped-prior to his parole board hearing. (Id. at 7.) Instead, he was arrested on the charges prior to his August 11, 2015 deposition and extradited back to Illinois. (DE 34-5 at 7.) Plaintiff asks the Court to declare that he is entitled to enjoy the benefit of the IAD and to ...


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.