United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
STEVEN WHALEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11, 2016, Plaintiff Sonia Leslie (“Plaintiff) filed
suit in this Court alleging excessive force, false
arrest/false imprisonment, violations of her due process
rights, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and
municipal/supervisory liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. She also brought claims under state law of
malicious prosecution, assault and battery, false
arrest/false imprisonment by Defendants before and during her
arrest at the Rosa Parks Transit Center (“Transit
Center”) in the City of Detroit. Before the Court is
Defendants Detroit Transportation Corporation
(“DTC”), Michael Anderson
(“Anderson”), and Nicole Rideaux's
(“Rideaux's”) August 9, 2017 Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [Docket #20]. The Court finds as
1. The motion as to the claims of excessive force as to
Defendant Rideaux (Count I) are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE 2.
Federal claims of false arrest/false imprisonment (Count II)
are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
3. Fourth Amendment due process claims against Defendants
Rideaux and Anderson (Count III) are dismissed WITH
4. Federal claims of conspiracy (Count IV) are dismissed WITH
5. Malicious Prosecution claims brought under federal law
against Defendants Rideaux and Anderson (Count V) are
dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
6. State claims of Malicious Prosecution (Count VI) are
dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
7. State claims of Assault and Battery (Count VII) are
dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
8. State claims of false arrest/false imprisonment (Count
VIII) are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
9. Federal claims against Defendant City of Detroit and
Defendant DTC (Count IX) are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
case pertains to Plaintiff's January 22, 2014 arrest by
Detroit Transit Police Officers Anderson and Rideaux.
Plaintiff makes the following allegations: While waiting for
a bus at the Transit Center, Plaintiff asked a DTC desk agent
what time her bus would be arriving. Amended Complaint,
¶ ¶ 12-13. In response, she was directed to
check the “wall schedule” for the arrival time.
Id. at ¶ 13. After determining that the wall
schedule was not updated, Plaintiff again approached the desk
agent for information. Id. ¶ ¶ 13-14. In
response, the desk agent ridiculed her but offered no
assistance. Id. Plaintiff walked away from the agent
but informed the desk agent that she “should offer
better customer service.” Id. In response, the
agent “rudely yelled” at Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff then left the building to determine if her bus had
arrived. Id. However, due to the cold weather,
Plaintiff went back into the bus station and sat down to wait
for the next bus, at which time she noticed that the desk
agent was speaking to defendant officers Anderson and
Rideaux. Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiff, lawfully
seated in the waiting area, was then approached by the
defendant officers who asked her why she was at the Transit
Center. Id. at ¶ 16. In response, Plaintiff
informed them that she was waiting for a bus to take her to
an appointment. Id. The officers then told Plaintiff
that it was “impermissible to harass” a Transit
Center employee. Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff
responded that she had merely inquired about the bus schedule
and that the desk agent was very rude. Id. The
officers then directed her to wait for her bus outside of the
terminal. Id. at ¶ 18. In response, Plaintiff
stated that “no reason” existed for her to be
forced to wait outside in the cold when it was the desk agent
and not she who had been disturbing the peace. Id.
Defendant Rideaux then grabbed Plaintiff by the arm and
pulled her from a seated to standing position. Id.
at ¶ 19. Plaintiff told Rideaux that all she wanted to
do was wait for the bus and that Rideaux was hurting her.
Id. While Plaintiff was talking to Rideaux,
Defendant Anderson came up from behind Plaintiff and
forcefully pushed Plaintiff to the ground face first.
Id. at ¶ 21. As a result of Anderson's
assault, Plaintiffs face struck the cement floor, resulting
in a facial laceration requiring medical attention.
Id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiffs glasses were also
broken as a result of the assault. Id. Both
defendant officers pulled Plaintiffs hands behind her,
handcuffed her, and pulled her into an upright position by
pulling on her handcuffed arms. Id. at
¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges that at all times, she
was fully compliant with the officers' instructions and
did not resist officers. Id. at ¶ ¶ 25-26.
also alleges that to “cover up their wrong doing,
” defendant officers caused Plaintiff “to be
falsely charged and prosecuted for the crime of assault and
battery.” Id. at ¶ 31. As a result of
defendant officers' excessive force, she received a
diagnosis of head trauma and received nine stitches to close
the forehead wound. Id. at ¶ 35. She
continues to suffer severe physical pain and mental distress
as a result of the physical trauma and “the false
proceedings” resulting from defendant officers'
actions. Id. at ¶ 33. She alleges that the
defendant officers “created false and misleading police
reports and gave false accounts to the prosecuting attorney
regarding the circumstances surrounding her arrest and
injuries. Id. at ¶ 36. On February 18,
2016, a State district court judge dismissed all of the
criminal charges against Plaintiff. Id. at ¶
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 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.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). To prevail on a motion for
summary judgment, the non-moving party must show sufficient
evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Klepper v. First American Bank, 916 F.2d 337, 341-42
(6th Cir. 1990). Drawing all reasonable inferences
in favor of the non-moving party, the Court must determine
“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 v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). Entry of summary judgment is
appropriate “against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celetox
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When the
“record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, ” there
is no genuine issue of material fact, and summary judgment is
appropriate. Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 234 F.3d 945,
951 (6th Cir. 2000).
the moving party in a summary judgment motion identifies
portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a
genuine dispute over material facts, the opposing party may
not then “rely on the hope that the trier of fact will
disbelieve the movant's denial of a disputed fact,
” but must make an affirmative evidentiary showing to
defeat the motion. Street v. J.C. Bradford &
Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989). The
non-moving party must identify specific facts in affidavits,
depositions or other factual material showing “evidence
on which the jury could reasonably find for the