United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JEFFREY T. PRICE, Plaintiff,
DON EDWARDS, ET AL., Defendants.
District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW FROM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
STEVEN WHALEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 24, 2017, Plaintiff Jeffrey Price filed a civil
complaint in this Court against Richard Snyder (then-Governor
of the State of Michigan), Kristie Etue (Director of the
Michigan State Police), Don Edwards (Montmorency County
Sheriff), and Vicki P. Kundinger (Montmorency County
Prosecutor) in their official capacities only, alleging that
he was wrongfully arrested and later forced to move from his
own home for violations of the 2006 and 2011 amendments to
Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act
(“SORA”), M.C.L. § 28.721 et seq.
case eventually settled under terms that are reflected in a
Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Price signed and returned
the Memorandum to the Court [Doc. #53]. On January 24, 2019,
he filed a Motion to Withdraw from the Settlement Agreement
reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.
March 14, 2018, the Court, overruling objections to my Report
and Recommendation [Doc. #32], granted in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff's
claim for monetary damages but permitting his claim for
declaratory and prospective injunctive relief to go forward.
See Opinion and Order [Doc. #42].
parties then engaged in settlement discussions, and each side
prepared proposed “final judgments” for
discussion. On July 17, 2018, Mr. Price and the attorneys for
Defendants participated in a telephone conference with the
undersigned Magistrate Judge. Agreement on the terms of a
settlement was reached, and the Court sent all parties a
Memorandum of Understanding that reflected the agreement. A
significant part of the settlement was the Defendants'
agreement that the 2006 and 2011 amendments to SORA would not
apply retroactively to Mr. Price, consistent with the Sixth
Circuit's decision in Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834
F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2016).
parties were instructed to each sign and return a copy of the
Memorandum if they agreed with the terms. The Plaintiff
signed and returned his copy, which was docketed on July 23,
2018 [Doc. #53].
Memorandum of Understanding noted that the parties and/or
their attorneys participated in a telephonic conference with
the Court on July 17, 2018, “to discuss the terms of a
possible settlement in this matter.” The Memorandum
stated, at pg. 1, that there remained two areas of
“While there was agreement on the majority of terms of
a proposed settlement, there was nevertheless disagreement on
(1) Whether Plaintiff's registration under Michigan's
SORA would be for a period of 25 years or for a period of
(2) Whether going forward, the Plaintiff would be obligated
to pay the annual fees as set out in M.C.L § §
28.725a(6)(b)-(c) and 28.725b(3).
Memorandum then enumerated, at pp. 2-3, the terms and issues
that the parties had agreed upon. The following provisions
are relevant Mr. Price's motion to withdraw from the
“It is the Court's understanding that the parties
have agreed to settle this matter, and stipulate to a