United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Mark
A. Goldsmith District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MONA
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Latausha Simmons contends that Defendants the City of
Detroit, Detroit Police Chief James Craig, and unnamed
officers of the Detroit Police Department violated her rights
under the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Docket
no. 1.) Before the Court is Defendant James Craig's
motion for summary judgment. (Docket no. 22.) This action has
been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all
non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (Docket no. 19.) The undersigned has reviewed
the pleadings and dispenses with a hearing pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f).
I.
RECOMMENDATION
For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant James Craig's motion
for summary judgment (docket no. 22) should be
GRANTED, and all claims against him should
be dismissed.
II.
REPORT
A.
Background
On
December 10, 2018, Plaintiff Latausha Simmons filed the
present complaint against Defendants the City of Detroit,
Detroit Police Chief James Craig, and several unknown
officers of the Detroit Police Department. (Docket no. 1.)
Plaintiff contends that the unidentified officers wrongfully
arrested her, used excess force, and unreasonably detained
her in harsh conditions for between four and five days.
(Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and various provisions of
Michigan law. (Id. at 6-13.)
Discovery
in this matter opened on June 11, 2019 and remains open
through June 5, 2020. (Docket no. 21.) On June 11, 2019,
Defendant James Craig, the Detroit Chief of Police, filed a
motion for summary judgment. (Docket no. 22.) For clarity,
the undersigned observes that although Defendant Craig relies
on both Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, his motion focuses on the facial allegations
of Plaintiff's complaint and should therefore be analyzed
as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
B.
Governing Law
A
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint. The court must
“construe the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, accept its allegations as true, and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.”
Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir.
2007); Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619
(6th Cir. 2002). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, the complaint's “[f]actual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations
in the complaint are true.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations
and emphasis omitted). See also Ass'n of Cleveland
Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545,
548 (6th Cir. 2007).
This
acceptance of factual allegations as true, however, is
inapplicable to legal conclusions: “Threadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, the court is
“not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched
as a factual allegation.” Id. (internal
quotations and citations omitted). “[O]nly a complaint
that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss.” Id. at 679. “Determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is]
a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”
Id. To make this determination, a court may apply
the following two-part test: (1) “identify[] pleadings
that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth;” and (2)
“assume [the] veracity [of the remaining allegations]
and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an
entitlement to relief.” Id.
In
addressing motions under Rule 12(b)(6), the Sixth Circuit
recognizes that, in addition to the allegations of the
complaint, the court “may also consider other materials
that are integral to the complaint, are public records, or
are otherwise appropriate for the taking of judicial
notice.” Ley v. Visteon Corp., 543 F.3d 801,
805 (6th Cir. 2008).
C.
...