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.

Dentry v. State

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

February 9, 2018

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE DENTRY, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, OAKLAND COUNTY 6TH CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF MADISON HEIGHTS, and CITY OF WARREN, Defendants.

          David M. Lawson District Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          R. STEVEN WHALEN, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff Christopher George Dentry filed a pro se civil complaint alleging violations of federal law[1" name="FN1" id= "FN1">1] and naming as Defendants the State of Michigan, Oakland County Circuit Court, the City of Warren, and the City of Madison Heights. Before the Court are the following motions, which have been referred for Reports and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B):

-Motion to Dismiss by City of Madison Heights [Doc. #20]
-Motion to Dismiss by Oakland County Circuit Court [Doc. #21]
-Motion to Dismiss by State of Michigan [Doc. #34]
-Motion for Summary Judgment by City of Warren [Doc. #36]

         For the reasons discussed below, I recommend as follows:

-That the State of Michigan's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #34] be DENIED as to the claim for prospective injunctive relief based on the Ex Post Facto Clause, and GRANTED as to the claim for money damages;
-That the City of Madison Heights' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #20] be GRANTED;
-That the Oakland County Circuit Court's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #21] be GRANTED;
-That the City of Warren's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #36] be GRANTED; and
-That pro bono counsel be appointed for Mr. Dentry to litigate the ex post facto claim.

         I. FACTS

         Mr. Dentry's complaint is somewhat vague, but appears to center on three events: (1) his placement on Michigan's Sex Offender Registry in 1995, based on his conviction in the Oakland County Circuit Court for Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Penetration, (2) judicial decisions in his Oakland County prosecution in 1994 and 1995, and (3) the Warren Police entry into his home in 1993, allegedly resulting in property damage and taking of money from his apartment.

         In his claim against the State of Michigan, Mr. Dentry alleges that as the result of his placement on the Sex Offender Registry in 1995, he has been unable to obtain work. He states that he is entitled to relief, citing “Federal Court Appellate Decision 8-25-16, ” Complaint, Statement of Claim [Doc. #1] Pg. ID 5, and adds that “[i]t was the appellate decision of the Federal court that shined a little light my way and made me look into my case.” Id. Pg. ID 9.[2]

         Mr. Dentry accuses the Oakland County Circuit Court of “dragging its feet” in his 1994 case, between June 9, 1994 and when he was released from probation on July 17, 1996, thereby violating due process. Id. Pg. ID 5. The Oakland County Register of Actions, attached to his complaint, shows that his initial appearance in the district court for Madison Heights was on June 9, 1994, that he pled no contest on December 15, 1994, that sentencing was ordered delayed for one year, that he was sentenced to one year probation on December 14, 1995, and that probation was terminated early on July 17, 1996.

         Mr. Dentry states that the City of Madison Heights set his bond at $180, 000 cash, and accuses the City of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of duty, violation of due process and equal protection, and evil-doing. Other than the reference to his pretrial bond, he does not set forth any facts supporting his claims. Id.

         Mr. Dentry alleges that on June 23, 1993, Warren Police Officers broke down the door to his apartment and entered without a warrant, causing property damage and unlawfully taking $850.00. Id.

         II. ...


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.