Davies v. Goebel, 15-cv-13799. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20171106860
Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS GOEBEL, EMMI, KINAL, AND ZELAKIEWICZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #38) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MENDOZA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #39) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On June 30, 2017, Defendants Matt Goebel, Michael Emmi, Paul Kinal, and Brian Zelakiewicz (the "Oakland County Defendants") filed a motion for partial summary judgment (the "Oakland County Defendants' Motion"). ( See
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS GOEBEL, EMMI, KINAL, AND ZELAKIEWICZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #38) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MENDOZA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #39) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On June 30, 2017, Defendants Matt Goebel, Michael Emmi, Paul Kinal, and Brian Zelakiewicz (the "Oakland County Defendants") filed a motion for partial summary judgment (the "Oakland County Defendants' Motion"). ( See E..
More
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS GOEBEL, EMMI, KINAL, AND ZELAKIEWICZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #38) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT MENDOZA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #39)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
On June 30, 2017, Defendants Matt Goebel, Michael Emmi, Paul Kinal, and Brian Zelakiewicz (the "Oakland County Defendants") filed a motion for partial summary judgment (the "Oakland County Defendants' Motion"). (See ECF #38.) On that same day, Defendant Benito Mendoza filed a motion for summary judgment (the "Mendoza Motion"). (See ECF #39.) The Court held a hearing on both motions on November 1, 2017.
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Oakland County Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
• Count I1 — Unlawful Search and Seizure in Violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Oakland County Defendants on this claim to the extent that it is based on the stop of the vehicle driven by Plaintiff. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim to the extent that it is based on Plaintiff's interactions with the Oakland County Defendants after recognition that the driver of the stopped vehicle was not Ray Slayton.
• Count I — Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Oakland County Defendants on this claim.
• Count I — Excessive Force. The Court DENIES Defendant Emmi's motion for summary judgment on this claim (the other Oakland County Defendants did not move for summary judgment on this claim).
• Count II — False Arrest. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim.
• Count III — False Imprisonment. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim.
***
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Mendoza Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
• Count I — Unlawful Search and Seizure in Violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Mendoza on this claim to the extent that it is based on Defendant Mendoza's acts or omissions before he (Mendoza) was informed that the person who was stopped was not Ray Slayton. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim to the extent that it is based on Defendant Mendoza's acts or omissions after he (Mendoza) was informed that the person who was stopped was not Ray Slayton.
• Count I — Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff's Constitutional Rights. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim to the extent it rests on the alleged conduct that Plaintiff describes on pages 128-135 in his deposition (ECF #41-11 at Pg. ID 501-03). The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Mendoza on this claim to the extent that it rests on any other alleged acts or omissions by Defendant Mendoza.
• Count I — Excessive Force. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Mendoza on this claim.
• Count I — Failure to Act. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim.
• Count II — False Arrest. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim.
• Count III — False Imprisonment. The Court DENIES summary judgment on this claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Count I asserts multiple theories that Defendants violated Plaintiff's civil rights.
Source: Leagle
