United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
BRUCE MEYERS, KALLIE ROESNER-MEYERS, and EUGENIA CALOCASSIDES, Plaintiffs,
VILLAGE OF OXFORD, a Michigan home-rule village; JOE YOUNG, in his personal and official capacity as Village Manger of the Village of Oxford; SUE BOSSARDET, in her personal and official capacity as President of the Village of Oxford; and MICHAEL SOLWOLD, in his official capacity only as Acting Police Chief of the Village of Oxford; ROBERT CHARLES DAVIS, in his personal and official capacity as an administrative officer Village Attorney of the Village of Oxford, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court
4, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc No. 17).
Plaintiffs filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss on June
8, 2017. (Doc No. 20). Defendants replied on June 22, 2017.
(Doc No. 21). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
brought this case after being “removed from their role
as reserve officer[s]” by the Defendants on January 10,
2017. (Doc No. 7 at Pg. ID 59). Plaintiffs volunteered to be
a part of the Village of Oxford Police Reserve team and the
Mounted Unit division. Each Plaintiff was trained and
certified to use pistols, rifles, and OC spray with LCSD.
(Id. at Pg. ID 57). The main goal of the reserve
unit is to:
supplement the patrol division. The reserve officers work
mainly on Friday and Saturday nights. They patrol on foot, on
bike or patrol car in the downtown area. They also handle
most of the traffic control assignments for holiday parades
and other special events.
(Id. at Pg. ID 56).
Mounted Unit for the Village of Oxford was asked to be a part
of the inauguration ceremonies and parade for the swearing in
of President Donald J. Trump in Washington, D.C.
(Id. at Pg. ID 58). The police chief at the time
accepted the offer on behalf on the unit. At the next village
council meeting, Defendants being displeased by the news
proceeded to question Plaintiffs.
approved a motion stating that the “Oxford Village
Council has not reviewed, approved, or authorized any mounted
police division, reserve or otherwise, within the Village of
Oxford; and that such be transmitted also to the Michigan
Multi-Jurisdictional Mounted Police Drill Team.”
(Id. at Pg. ID 58). The motion was released without
first notifying Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs argue
they lost their positions as reservists and their good
reputation. (Id. at Pg. ID 59).
asked to have a name clearing hearing but were never given
one. (Id. at Pg. ID 59). Defendants requested
certain documents from Plaintiffs before the hearing could
take place. Plaintiffs never gave Defendants any documents
believing that it was not necessary to do so under the law.
(Id. at Pg. ID 60). In response to not receiving a
hearing, Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 27, 2017
and amended the complaint on March 8, 2017. (Doc No. 1 &
7). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 4, 2017. (Doc
No.17). Plaintiffs responded on June 8, 2017. (Doc No. 20).
Defendants replied on June 22, 2017 (Doc No. 21).
Applicable Law and Analysis
Standard of Review
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of
Plaintiff's complaint. Accepting all factual allegations
as true, the court will review the complaint in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff. Eidson v. Tennessee
Dep't of Children's Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634
(6th Cir. 2007). As a general rule, to survive a motion to
dismiss, the complaint must state sufficient “facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). The complaint must demonstrate more than a sheer
possibility that the defendant's conduct was unlawful.
Id. at 556. Claims comprised of “labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555.
Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when
Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).