United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Anthony P. Patti United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING CENTER LINE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge
commenced suit against the Defendants alleging mistreatment
throughout his arrest and prosecution in 2014. In 2014
Plaintiff was mistakenly regarded as a suspect in a series of
bank robberies within the cities of Center Line and Oak Park.
Pending before the Court is Center Line’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court will
GRANT Center Line’s Motion .
19, 2014, the PNC Bank in Center Line was robbed. Center Line
Officer Curt Winn investigated the robbery. Two employees,
Kiana Anderson and Prena Kalaj witnessed the robbery. Ms.
Anderson was the bank teller. Ms. Anderson described an
African-American male, approximately 6’4” tall
and 200 pounds who approached her. The man gave her a note,
which indicated he had a gun. The man later told her to hurry
up and give her money. According to Ms. Anderson, she gave
the robber the money. The robber then backed away and walked
fast out of the bank.
middle of the encounter, Ms. Kalaj walked behind Ms. Anderson
to get to her desk. Ms. Kalaj heard the robber say
“Hurry the fuck up” and looked at him. Ms. Kalaj
proceeded to press the panic button. Other employees who were
present generally confirmed Ms. Kalaj and Ms.
Anderson’s recollection of the events.
robbery was captured on surveillance. A still photograph of
the suspect was taken from the surveillance video and
circulated to the news. Fingerprints were taken from the
bank, along with the note that the suspect gave the teller.
20, 2014 an anonymous caller spoke to Sgt. Grace at Center
Line Police Department and identified the suspect as Glynn
Jones Jr. Later that day, another anonymous caller identified
the suspect as Glynn Jones Jr. Winn searched Jones’
name and obtained a prior photo of him. Using the picture of
Jones, Winn created a photo array, including the photographs
of five other men. Winn took the photo array to PNC Bank, the
location of the robbery. Ms. Anderson was unable to identify
the suspect. Ms. Kalaj, however, identified Jones as the
then learned that similar robberies occurred in nearby cities
Lathrup Village, Berkley, and Oak Park. Winn met with
officers from those jurisdictions and also the FBI.
21, 2014 the Michigan Forensic Lab completed its report on
the evidence Winn submitted. The lab compared the latent
prints to Jones’ finger and palm impressions
“with no identifications made.” Winn presented
his case to the city prosecutor.
22, 2014, Winn obtained a search warrant for Jones’
home and an arrest warrant for Jones. That same day, the
search warrant was executed at Jones’ residence. No
evidence of the robberies was found, but Jones was arrested.
After interrogation, Jones was taken to the Macomb County
Jail. On May 23, 2014, Jones was arraigned on charges of
armed robbery. He posted bond and was released that same day.
28, 2014, the same PNC Bank was robbed for a second time.
Immediately thereafter, Center Line requested the Sterling
Heights Police Department to observe Jones’ apartment.
The Sterling Heights Police observed both of Jones’
vehicles present at the apartment. During this time Winn
began to doubt whether Jones was the bank robber.
30, 2014, PNC offered a $5,000 reward for the arrest and
conviction of the robber. On June 4, 2014, the FBI also
offered a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest
and conviction of the bank robber. On July 2, 2014, Center
Line dropped the charges against Jones.
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) “directs that summary
judgment shall be granted if ‘there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Cehrs v.
Ne. Ohio Alzheimer’s Research Ctr., 155 F.3d 775,
779 (6th Cir. 1998). The court must view the facts, and draw
reasonable inferences from those facts, in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). No genuine
dispute of material fact exists where the record “taken
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find
for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus.,
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Ultimately, the court evaluates “whether the evidence
presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477
U.S. at 251–52.
Complaint asserts two federal claims and five state-law
I: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment against the City of Center Line
Count II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment against Individual Defendants
in their Individual Capacities
III: Deprivation of Rights Pursuant to the Michigan
IV: Defamation Count
V: False Arrest Count
VI: Malicious Prosecution
VII: False Imprisonment against all defendants
Court will discuss the federal claims first.
Section 1983 Claims Against Individual Defendants
1983 establishes “a cause of action for deprivation
under color of state law, of any rights, privileges or
immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States.” Horn v. Madison Cty. Fiscal Court, 22
F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 1994). To prevail on this claim, a
plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) the deprivation of a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States (2) caused by a person acting under the color of state
law.” Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d
543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Sigley v. City of Parma
Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533 (6th Cir. 2006)). However,
“[u]nder the doctrine of qualified immunity,
‘government officials performing discretionary
functions generally are shielded from liability from civil
damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights which a
reasonable person would have known.’ ”
Id. (citations omitted). Thus, qualified immunity in
any given case is determined by a two-part inquiry:
“First, viewing the facts in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, has the plaintiff shown that a
constitutional violation has occurred? Second, was the right
clearly established at the time of the violation?”
Id. (citations omitted). Jones v. Muskegon
Cty., 625 F.3d 935, 940–41 (6th Cir. 2010).
alleges Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations against
two individual Center Line Defendants: Paul Myszenski and
Paul Myszenski is Entitled ...