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.

Siner v. City of Detroit

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

March 30, 2017

Rodrick Siner, Plaintiff,
v.
City of Detroit, et al., Defendants.

          Mona K. Majzoub United States Magistrate Judge.

          OPINION AND ORDER: (1) ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [28]; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [22]; (3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CITY OF DETROIT; (4) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CITY OF DETROIT POLICE OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND (5) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST JOHN DOES 2-4 IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES

          HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         This is a pro se civil rights action against the City of Detroit and four employees of the City of Detroit Police Department. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt No. 22. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising the Court to grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 31. For the following reasons the Court will ACCEPT the Report and Recommendation.

         II. Facts

         Plaintiff brought this action on October 8, 2015, asserting that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting, incarcerating, and prosecuting him on false assault and weapons charges, which were ultimately dismissed.[1] At the time of filing, Plaintiff did not know the names of the City of Detroit employees involved. Instead, he filed against four unknown “John Doe” Defendants.

         On April 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Majzoub ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why the “John Doe” Defendants had not been named or served. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff responded, asking the Court to extend the time for service and simultaneously filing a Motion for Discovery. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. On August 26, 2016, Defendant City of Detroit filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Plaintiff responded to. On November 9, 2016, and over the Defendant City of Detroit's objection, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery and extended the time of service. Dkt. No. 26. On January 4, 2017, Plaintiff amended his Complaint, identifying John Doe # 1 as Cregg Hughes. Dkt. No. 27. On January 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation, urging the Court to grant the Defendant City of Detroit's Motion for Summary Judgment on two grounds. Dkt. No. 28.

         First, Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommends dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the City of Detroit in its entirety and against the employees in their official capacity pursuant to an order from the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Second, Magistrate Majzoub recommends dismissing the claims against the unnamed John Does, in their individual capacities, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff objects to both recommendations.

         III. Discussion

         1. Bankruptcy Court Proceedings

         The City of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy in July 2013. See In Re City of Detroit, Michigan, Case No. 13-53846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.). Following the bankruptcy filing, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order establishing Bar Dates for preserving a law suit against the City of Detroit. On December 10, 2014, the Eighth Amended Plan for the Adjustment of Debts for the City of Detroit (hereinafter “the Plan”) became effective. The Plan provides:

Except as provided in the Plan or in the Confirmation Order, the rights afforded under the Plan and the treatment of Claims under the Plan will be in exchange for and in complete satisfaction, discharge and release of all Claims arising on or before the Effective Date, including any interest accrued on Claims from and after the Petition Date. Except as provided in the Plan or in the Confirmation Order, Confirmation will, as of the Effective Date, discharge the City from all Claims or other debts that arose on or before the Effective Date, and all debts of the kind specified in section 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) of the Bankruptcy Code, whether or not (i) a proof of Claim based on such debt is Filed or deemed Filed pursuant to section 501 of the Bankruptcy Code, (ii) a Claim based on such debt is allowed pursuant to section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code or (iii) the Holder of a Claim based on such debt has accepted the Plan.

Id., p. 57.

         The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in 2010. Dkt. No. 1, p. 3 (Pg. ID 3). However, Plaintiff did not file this action until 2015. Id., p. 16 (Pg. ID 16). Therefore, to state a viable claim against the City of Detroit or its officers, Plaintiff must have preserved this cause of action by filing a proof before the Bar Date. As best as the Court can tell, Mr. Siner failed to preserve his claim. The City of Detroit filed a motion to enforce the Bar Date Order against Mr. Siner. Dkt. No. 22-2. On June 29, 2016, Judge Thomas J. Tucker of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered Mr. Siner 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.