Thomas v. Lambert

594 F.Supp.3d 889

Crystal THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Kelly LAMBERT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-11046

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

Signed March 28, 2022

Ayanna D. Hatchett, Madeline M. Sinkovich, Vernon R. Johnson, Johnson Law PLC, Detroit, MI, Solomon M. Radner, Radner Law Group, PLLC, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiffs Crystal Thomas, L.T. 2, Matthew Ford, Le'Marion Thomas.

Andrew J. Jurgensen, Mary A. Waddell, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, John G. Fedynsky, State of Michigan Attorney General's Office, Complex Litigation Division, Lansing, MI, for Defendants Kelly Lambert, William Ardnt, David Murchie, Dan Lewis, Daniel Lubelan, Derek Miller, Brian McComb, David Sosinki, Inspector Simon.

Andrew J. Jurgensen, Mary A. Waddell, Michigan Department of Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for Defendants John Doe Michigan State Police Officers 1-20.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge

Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court's Order denying their Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 68. As explained hereafter, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.

I.

A.

On November 30, 2018, Defendant Officers from the Saginaw County and Michigan State Police went to Plaintiff Crystal Thomas's house to execute an arrest warrant for her 16-year-old son, DF, who stole approximately $150 from two illegal-firearms dealers. See Thomas v. Farr , No. 19-11046, 2020 WL 674342, at *1–5 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2020). The police followed her from work in an unmarked vehicle, pulled her over, secured her, and took her to an abandoned school where they questioned her about DF. Id. She offered Defendants a key to her house to check for DF, but they replied that "they had certain protocol they have to follow, which would entail smashing out the windows of [her] home and breaking down the doors." Id. (quoting ECF No. 24-3 at PageID.376).

In executing the arrest warrant for DF, Defendants destroyed about $16,000 worth of Plaintiffs’ property. See id. After those efforts, Defendants transported Plaintiff Thomas's three children, and later Plaintiff Thomas, to the Buena Vista police station for questioning about DF, who did not live with Plaintiffs and was not present during the execution of the warrant. Id.

In April 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendants unlawfully detained Plaintiff Thomas in a police cruiser in the parking lot of an abandoned school before the raid; that Defendants unlawfully detained Plaintiffs LT1, LT2, and Matthew Ford (Thomas's three sons) at their house during the raid and at the Buena Vista police station after the raid; and that Defendants unreasonably searched their house by, among other things, deploying robots and at least 28 gas bombs through the windows, slashing their floorboards with a chainsaw, and ramming the walls down with a 17,500 lb. armored vehicle named the Bearcat. Id. at *1 ; ECF Nos. 1; 44. The original complaint named Aaron Bauman and John Doe Michigan State Police Officers 1–20 as Defendants. Farr , 2020 WL 674342, at *1. Defendant Aaron Bauman filed a motion to dismiss on June 14, 2019. Id.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2019. Id. The amended complaint did not identify Defendant Bauman, so he was dismissed on July 9, 2019. Id. (citing ECF No. 9). In Count I, Plaintiff Thomas alleged that Defendants Farr and Wickersham unlawfully detained her in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In Count II, Plaintiffs Ford, LT1, and LT2 alleged that they were unlawfully detained by Defendants Arndt, Hoffman, Lambert, Lewis, Lubelan, McComb, Miller, Murchie, Pinkerton, Sosinski, Taylor, and Ziecina. In Count III, all Plaintiffs alleged that their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches was violated by Defendants identified in Count II less Defendant Murchie. Thomas v. Farr , No. 19-11046, 2020 WL 674342, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2020), appeal dismissed sub nom. Thomas v. Bauman , 835 F. App'x 5 (6th Cir. 2020).

B.

On October 25, 2019, ten days before the parties submitted their Rule 23(f) discovery plan, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity on all three counts. ECF No. 21. Twenty-five days later, the first Scheduling Order was set with a May 5, 2020 discovery deadline. ECF No. 25. Less than three months later, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied and granted in part. See generally Farr , 2020 WL 674342.

Count I was dismissed without prejudice against Defendant Wickersham, retaining Defendant Farr. Farr , 2020 WL 674342, at *9–10 ; see also id. at *8 ("Plaintiff ‘concur[ed] in dismissal without prejudice for Defendant Wickersham only.’ " (citation omitted)); id. ("It is also unclear whether Thomas consented to answering questions from police officers. There are insufficient facts about Defendant Farr's involvement ...."). To that end, there was "no further [relevant] information" in the record beyond Defendant Farr's statement that he "tailed [Plaintiff] Thomas’[s] vehicle in an unmarked vehicle," Plaintiff Thomas's statement "that two men were present in the vehicle in the parking lot and asked her questions," and Defendant Murchie's admission that "he was in the vehicle and asked Thomas questions." Id. at *8.

Count II was dismissed against all Defendants less Defendant Murchie. Id. at *10 ; see also id. at *6 ("Plaintiffs Ford, LT 1, and LT 2 alleged that their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures was violated when they were (1) detained, handcuffed, and interrogated outside their home and then (2) subject to additional detainment and interrogation by Defendant Murchie."); id. at *7 ("There is no reason to review the facts regarding the detention of the male Plaintiffs at the house because the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for their detention during the execution of the search warrant."). Factually, Count II was dismissed because "[b]oth parties admit that by the time Detective Trooper Murchie detained and interrogated Plaintiffs, the male Plaintiffs were at the police station and no longer at the house where the search warrant was being conducted. This information alone is sufficient to establish a potential violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights." Id. at *8 (internal citations omitted).

And Count III was left fully intact. Id. at *10 ; see also id. at *9 ("Defendants have not identified sufficient facts to conclude that the search was reasonable and therefore that they did not violate Plaintiffs’ rights."). To that end, "the only evidence available of the search [was] nine pictures from Plaintiffs showing significant damage to the property, multiple police reports describing the extensive damage, and one police officer who averred that most of the damage occurred in their efforts to encourage DMF to leave the house." Id. at 9 (internal citations omitted).

Defendants appealed, and the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for want of jurisdiction in November 2020, causing a nine-month delay in the case. Thomas v. Bauman , 835 F. App'x 5 (6th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). According to the Sixth Circuit, the Defendants’ arguments for qualified immunity only raised questions of fact. See id. at 8 (holding that Defendants did not "raise[ ] the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law" (quoting Livermore ex rel. Rohm v. Lubelan , 476 F.3d 397, 403 (6th Cir. 2007) )). Indeed, Defendants "contradicted [Plaintiffs’] version of the facts at every turn." Id. (quoting Berryman v. Rieger , 150 F.3d 561, 564 (6th Cir. 1998) ). As the Sixth Circuit elaborated, Defendants’ entire argument was premised on the court "believe[ing] [their] version of the facts." Id. (same). Such "determinations of evidence sufficiency," according to the Sixth Circuit, could be made independent of Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. (quoting Behrens v. Pelletier , 516 U.S. 299, 313, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) ). And the case's grounding in qualified immunity, the Sixth circuit held, did not change the calculus. Id. (same).

C.

Relying on new information learned during discovery, in March 2021, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint making three substantive changes: (1) adding Count IV for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) adding Defendant Inspector David Simon and naming him in Counts II, III, and IV; and (3) adding Defendants Arndt, Lambert, Lewis, Lubelan, McComb, Miller, Simon, and Sosinski to Count IV. ECF No. 44. Defendants answered in April 2021. ECF No. 50. On August 3, 2021, the parties stipulated to adjourn the dispositive-motion deadline for four months (i.e., to December 3, 2021). ECF No. 56. Meanwhile, the parties continued discovery.

Four months later, on the dispositive-motion deadline, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment, as required by Local Rule 7.1(b)(2). ECF No. 59. For lack of good cause, this Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Leave. Thomas v. Lambert , No. 1:19-CV-11046, 587 F.Supp.3d 635 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2022) ; ECF No. 67. Fourteen days later, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which will also be denied. ECF No. 68.

II.

Local Rule 7.1(h) distinguishes the standard of review for motions for reconsideration of final orders, E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1), as opposed to nonfinal orders, E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(2). Plaintiff's motion seeks review of a nonfinal order.

Local Rule 7.1(h)(2) provides that:

Motions for reconsideration of non-final orders are disfavored. They must be filed within 14 days after entry of the order and may be brought only upon the following grounds:

(A) The court made a mistake, correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the prior decision, and the mistake was based on the record and law before the court at the time of its prior decision;

(B) An

...