Chambers v. Sanders

DANNY LAMONT CHAMBERS, and DONTELL RAYVON-EDDIE SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. RONALD SANDERS, and CITY OF DETROIT, Defendants.

No. 21-cv-10746

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

April 18, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS RONALD SANDERS AND THE CITY OF DETROIT'S JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COUNT I - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIM (ECF NO. 21) AND

(2) DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS' REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIM IN COUNT II

Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

This action arises out of Danny Burton's September 14, 1987 conviction for First-Degree Murder and Felony Firearm associated with the death of Leonard Ruffin. Burton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, but that conviction was subsequently vacated on December 6, 2019, due in large part to recantation of multiple witnesses' trial testimony. On July 20, 2020 Burton brought an action against Ronald Sanders, the City of Detroit, and the Detroit Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Burton v. Chambers, et al., Case No. 20-cv-11948 (E.D. Mich.).

On April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Danny Lamont Chambers and Dontell Rayvon-Eddie Smith, Burton's adult sons, brought this lawsuit against Defendants Ronald Sanders and the City of Detroit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs' constitutional due process rights to familial association when Defendants allegedly caused the wrongful incarceration of Plaintiffs' father. Now before the Court is Defendants Ronald Sanders and the City of Detroit's Joint Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 21), which has been fully briefed. The Court held a hearing on Defendants' motion on Thursday, April 14, 2022.

For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in Count I of their Complaint against Defendants Sanders and the City of Detroit, and that claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in Count II, and that claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Facts^[1]

Danny Burton was convicted on September 14, 1987, “after a five-day jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court on a charge of first-degree Murder, MCL 750.316, and Felony Firearm, MCL 750.227(B), ... and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole” for the murder of Leonard Ruffin. (ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 9, 10.) According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, “[t]he case against Mr. Burton was built primarily upon witness statements of individuals who resided in or were present at the home where the shooting [of Mr. Ruffin] occurred, ” and “the key witnesses who testified at Mr. Burton's trial subsequently provided affidavits recanting their trial testimony and stating that they gave false statements at trial because of threats and intimidation by Defendant [Ronald] Sanders, ” a Detective with the Detroit Police Department. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 11-12.) Because of that, Mr. Burton's conviction was subsequently vacated on December 6, 2019. (Id. ¶ 13.)

On July 20, 2020, Burton brought an action in this Court against Ronald Sanders, the City of Detroit, and the Detroit Police Department, asserting that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Case No. 20-cv-11948 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 1, Complaint.) Burton asserted claims against Sanders for Brady violations, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence, and against the City of Detroit and the Detroit Police Department for creating policies, practices and customs, including failure to provide adequate training to police officers, that violated Burton's constitutional rights based on fabrication and withholding of evidence, and the right not to be seized or detained without probable cause. (Id.)

On January 19, 2021, this Court granted the City of Detroit's motion to dismiss, holding that the Detroit Police Department is a municipal department of the City of Detroit and not a legal entity amendable to suit, and that Burton's claims against the City were discharged by the City's Chapter 9 bankruptcy and therefore barred. (Case No. 20-cv-11948 (E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 20.)

Less than three months later, on April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Danny Lamont Chambers and Dontell Rayvon-Eddie Smith, Burton's adult sons, brought this lawsuit against Defendants Ronald Sanders and the City of Detroit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 for violation of their constitutional due process rights to familial association based on the alleged wrongful incarceration of their father.

(Compl.)^[2] Plaintiffs also allege a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs plead that, as a result of Defendants' “unconstitutional behavior” -namely, claims for Brady violations, malicious prosecution, and fabrication of evidence in the 1987 prosecution of Burton - “Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights as children of Danny Burton to have their family unit ... to be protected and preserved.” (Compl. ¶ 50, and Count I.) Plaintiffs allege that they “have the constitutional right to have their family unit protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, ” and that their “rights were violated when defendants violated Mr. Burton's rights, which caused Mr. Burton to be falsely convicted and imprisoned.” (Id. ¶¶ 49, 51.)

B. Procedural History

On December 17, 2021, Defendants Sanders and the City of Detroit filed their joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 21, Defs.' Mot.) Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs' federal claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because only the purported victim, or his estate's representative, may prosecute a section 1983 claim, and Plaintiffs here merely seek redress for the collateral effects of Burton's purportedly wrongful conviction. Defendants further argue that Sanders is entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiffs' section 1983 allegations because there is no clearly established right to a claim for violation of the right to family integrity as a collateral injury in the context of this case, and that the claims against the City are barred and discharged by the City's Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Michigan law, and that such a claim is barred by governmental immunity.

Plaintiffs filed a Response in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 25, Pls.' Resp.) Plaintiffs argue that the right to familial association has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and that Plaintiffs have properly asserted a claim for violation of that right. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Sanders is not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to familial association is clearly established, and that Detroit's Chapter 9 bankruptcy does not provide immunity for Plaintiffs' claims because their claims did not accrue before the bankruptcy, and even if they did, Plaintiffs qualify for excusable neglect. Plaintiffs further argue that they state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendant Sanders only, and not the City, and that Sanders is not entitled to governmental immunity.

Defendants filed a Reply brief in support of their motion. (ECF No. 26, Defs.' Reply.) Defendants contend, again, that Plaintiffs are seeking redress for the collateral effects of Burton's purportedly wrongful conviction, and fail to state a viable section 1983 claim, and that Sanders is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs' collateral due process claim was not clearly established in 1987. Defendants further contend that the City's bankruptcy bars Plaintiffs' derivative due process and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, which are entirely dependent on the success of Burton's claims, which have been found to be barred, and that Plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails because it is based on conduct directed at a non-party and third person, Danny Burton, and there is no evidence of intent to cause harm to Plaintiffs.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for the dismissal of a case where the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he complaint ‘does not need detailed factual allegations' but should identify ‘more than labels and conclusions.'” Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428, 435 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

When reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a 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.” Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2012). The court “need not accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, or an unwarranted factual inference.” Id. at 539 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10,...