United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
OPINION REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
GORDON
J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
Procedural Overview
On
January 26, 2019, Plaintiff, John Roberts, filed a complaint
against the Delta County Prosecutor's Office, Michigan
State Police Trooper Belonga, [1] Prosecutor Lauren Wickman, and
the Michigan State Police (MSP), alleging a number of claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and, arguably, a state-law
malicious prosecution claim. Roberts's claims arose out
of a September 16, 2016, traffic stop of Roberts by Trooper
Belonga and a subsequent criminal prosecution by Delta
County.
On
March 19, 2019, Defendants Prosecutor's Office and
Wickman filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) arguing that the Prosecutor's Office is not a
legal entity capable of being sued and that Wickman, as a
prosecutor, is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity
or, alternatively, qualified immunity on Roberts's
federal-law claims and governmental immunity on Roberts's
state-law claim. (ECF No. 14.) Roberts responded on April 9,
2019. (ECF No. 18.) Although Roberts did not file a motion to
amend, he attached a proposed amended complaint to his
response. On April 23, 2019, the Prosecutor's Office and
Wickman replied, arguing that Roberts's new allegations
in his proposed amended complaint do not suffice to avoid
dismissal. (ECF No. 19.)
On May
2, 2019, the MSP and Trooper Belonga moved to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds
that Roberts's claims against the MSP and Trooper Belonga
in his official capacity are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment, that Trooper Belonga is entitled to qualified
immunity, and that the complaint otherwise fails to state a
claim. In response, on May 17, 2019, Roberts filed his first
amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.) On May 23, 2019, the
Prosecutor's Office and Wickman filed a motion to strike
the first amended complaint, arguing that Roberts filed the
first amended complaint too late to qualify as an amendment
as of right (at least as to the Prosecutor's Office and
Wickman), and Roberts had not obtained written consent or
leave from the Court before filing his amended pleading. (ECF
No. 26.) On May 30, 2019, Roberts filed a motion to amend
(ECF No. 29), as well as a response to the Prosecutor's
Office and Wickman's motion to strike (ECF No. 30),
arguing that the Court should grant his motion to amend. The
Prosecutor's Office and Wickman responded to Robert's
motion to amend on June 11, 2019 (ECF No. 34), arguing that
the amendment is futile.
Finally,
on June 3, 2019, the MSP and Trooper Belonga filed a motion
to dismiss the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 31.) Roberts
has responded to the motion (ECF No. 38), and the MSP and
Trooper Belonga have replied (ECF No. 39.)
Given
the existing procedural quagmire-with Roberts' first
amended complaint being effective as to the MSP and Trooper
Belonga but not as to the Prosecutor's Office and
Wickman, and the MSP and Trooper Belonga moving for dismissal
of the first amended complaint and the Prosecutor's
Office and Wickman opposing Roberts's motion to amend-the
Court will grant Roberts's motion to amend and consider
his first amended complaint the operative pleading. In
addition to deciding the MSP and Trooper Belonga's motion
to dismiss, the Court will treat the Prosecutor's Office
and Wickman's opposition to the motion for leave to amend
on the ground of futility, together with their motion and
supporting briefs to dismiss the original complaint, as their
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
For the
following reasons, the Court will grant both motions to
dismiss and dismiss Roberts's first amended complaint
with prejudice.[2]
II.
Motion Standard
Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil 8(a), a complaint must provide
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but “a plaintiff's
obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief' required more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47,
78 S.Ct. 99, 103 (1957)). The court must accept all of the
plaintiff's factual allegations as true and construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir.
2009). The court must determine whether the complaint
contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the 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, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009). Although the plausibility standard is not
equivalent to a “‘probability requirement,' .
. . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965).
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court
to infer more than a sheer possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]'-that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at
679, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
In
general, in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the
court is limited to considering only the pleadings. See
Rondigo, LLC v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 682 (6th
Cir. 2011) (noting that “Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny is
limited to the pleadings”). However, without converting
the motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 56, a court
may also consider “any exhibits attached [to the
Complaint], public records, items appearing in the record of
the case and exhibits attached to defendant's motion to
dismiss so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and
are central to the claims contained therein.”
Bassett v. NCAA, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008).
Thus, in addition to Roberts's factual allegations in the
amended complaint, the Court may also consider the dashboard
video from the camera on Trooper Belonga's patrol cruiser
of the September 16, 2016 traffic stop-as Roberts refers to
the video in the first amended complaint and the traffic stop
is central to Roberts's complaint-and the transcripts of
the December 8, 2016 preliminary examination and the February
3, 2017, circuit court motion hearing-as they are public
records of court proceedings. See Buck v. Thomas M.
Cooley Law Sch., 597 F.3d 812, 816 (6th Cir. 2009).
III.
Facts
The
following facts are taken from Roberts's first amended
complaint, Trooper Belonga's dash camera video, and the
state-court transcripts.
On
September 6, 2016, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Trooper
Belonga was parked in his patrol car in the parking lot of a
church on U.S. Highway 2 in downtown Rapid River, Michigan.
The road at that point is four lanes, with a left-hand
passing lane in each direction. As Trooper Belonga observed
traffic, he noticed three vehicles traveling close together
in the left-hand passing lane, including a silver sedan and a
silver van. None of the vehicles was passing a vehicle in the
right-hand lane or making a left-hand turn. Trooper Belonga
pulled out of the church and initiated a stop of the silver
sedan for driving in the passing lane.
Roberts
was driving the silver sedan, which was registered to the
Oklevueha Native American Church (ONAC). Trooper Belonga
approached the passenger side of the vehicle as Roberts was
attempting to exit the driver's side door. Roberts told
Trooper Belonga that he had been following the silver van.
Trooper Belonga asked Roberts if he would be willing to go
back to Trooper Belonga's patrol car while Trooper
Belonga checked everything out. Roberts agreed to go to
Trooper Belonga's car. Soon after Roberts exited his
vehicle, he told Trooper Belonga that his license had been
suspended, and Roberts volunteered that he had been raided
three times for providing cannabis oil. Roberts said that he
did not have a medical marijuana card but he was using the
ONAC card. Roberts retrieved his ONAC card from his vehicle
to show Trooper Belonga, and he began to tell Trooper Belonga
about making cannabis oil.
Roberts
got into Trooper Belonga's patrol car and Trooper Belonga
proceeded to question Roberts. Trooper Belonga asked Roberts
for permission to search the vehicle, and Roberts consented
to the search. Trooper Belonga's partner, Trooper
Lajimodiere, searched the vehicle and found two bottles of
oil in the trunk. Trooper Lajimodiere also found a syringe
with “Simpson oil” underneath the front passenger
seat. Trooper Belonga field tested the liquids in the bottles
and one of them tested positive for marijuana. Roberts told
Trooper Belonga that it takes a large amount of marijuana to
produce concentrated oil. Trooper Belonga took that oil and
told Roberts that he would be doing a report. Roberts was
released at the conclusion of the stop.
Roberts
was subsequently charged in Delta County with possession with
intent to deliver a controlled substance, a four-year felony.
M.C.L. § 333.7401(2)(c). On December 8, 2016, District
Judge Steven C. Parks conducted a preliminary examination to
determine whether there was probable cause to bind Roberts
over for further proceedings in the circuit court. The
prosecutor presented testimony from Trooper Belonga regarding
the stop of Roberts; the search of his vehicle; the field
test results showing that the oil contained marijuana; and
Roberts's admissions that the items belonged to him, that
he had intended to deliver them to a woman in Mackinaw City,
and that he created them. Roberts's counsel
cross-examined Trooper Belonga on these issues. At the
conclusion of the hearing, Judge Parks found probable cause
for bind-over to circuit court. (ECF No. 32-3 at PageID.257.)
On
February 3, 2017, Delta County Circuit Court Judge John B.
Economopoulos held a hearing on two motions that Roberts
filed. The first motion concerned the validity of the traffic
stop, and the second motion requested amendment of
Roberts's bond conditions to permit him to use marijuana
for medicinal purposes. As to the first motion, Trooper
Belonga testified about the circumstances surrounding the
stop and was cross-examined by Robert's counsel. At the
conclusion of the hearing, Judge Economopoulos found that
“Trooper Belonga did have probable cause to believe
that the defendant violated a traffic law and therefore the
decision to stop the automobile under those circumstances was
lawful and reasonable.” (ECF No. 32-5 at PageID.289.)
Before turning to the bond motion, Judge Economopoulos
dismissed Trooper Belonga, noting that “this issue
doesn't involve you.” (Id.) Judge
Economopoulos then heard argument from Wickman and
Roberts's counsel regarding the merits of the bond
conditions motion and, for a number of reasons, including
that Roberts did not currently have medical marijuana
privileges under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA)
and had a prior marijuana-related misdemeanor conviction,
denied Roberts's motion to amend bond. (Id. at
PageID.302.)
Subsequently,
after Roberts filed “more Motions to Dismiss and only
after approximately three hours of oral argument, when the
Court was at the cusp of dismissing the action . . . Delta
county agreed to dismiss the charges.” (ECF No. 25 at
PageID.138.)
IV.
Discussion
As
mentioned above, the Court considers Roberts's first
amended complaint (ECF No. 25) the operative pleading and,
therefore, will grant Roberts's motion to amend and deny
the ...