ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge.
On August 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Western District of Michigan. On July 7, 2016, the action was transferred to this Court.
On October 17, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [25] advising the Court to dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs David Lyons-Bey and Dorian Willis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; grant the Motion to Quash [18] filed by non-parties Greg Morabito and Utica Police Department; deny as moot Plaintiff Lyons-Bey's Motion to Substitute [20]; and deny as moot Plaintiff Lyons-Bey's Motion for Relief from Judgment [21].
On November 6, 2017, the Court entered an Order [26] adopting the R&R. On November 8 and November 15, 2017, Plaintiffs filed Motions for Extension of Time [27, 28] to file objections to the R&R. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Reconsideration [29], a Motion Requesting that Plaintiff's Civil Action Caption and Pleadings Represent the Amended Complaint [30], and a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading/Relief from Judgment [32].
On November 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs an extension, and instructed Plaintiffs that their Objections were due by December 26, 2017 [33].
Plaintiffs filed another Motion for Extension of Time [34] and Motion for Reconsideration [35] on November 27, 2017. Two days later, the Court entered an Order [36] holding in abeyance the two pending motions for reconsideration and denying as moot the motion to extend.
On December 4, 2017, Plaintiffs filed another Motion for Reconsideration [37]. Plaintiffs filed Objections to the R&R [38, 39] on January 8 and January 31, 2018.
This Order resolves the pending motions and objections. As discussed more in depth below, the Court's decision to adopt the R&R remains unchanged. Therefore, the claims of Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis are
As to the motions that are not addressed by the R&R, the Court
The Court adopts the facts of this case as set forth in the R&R:
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1915A; grant the Motion to Quash [18] filed by non-parties Greg Morabito and Utica Police Department; deny as moot Plaintiff Lyons-Bey's Motion to Substitute [20]; and deny as moot Plaintiff Lyons-Bey's Motion for Relief from Judgment [21]. Plaintiffs filed Objections [38, 39]
As far as the Court can tell, Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis claim that the doctrine established by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) does not bar their claims. Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis claim that they were falsely arrested and imprisoned, that the arresting officer provided false information to obtain an arrest warrant, and that the Defendants conspired to fabricate information and evidence used at Plaintiffs' jury trial.
Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Yalaunda Butts object to the fact that the Magistrate Judge failed to rule on their First
Contrary, to Plaintiffs' arguments, the findings of the R&R are sound. The driving force behind Plaintiffs' allegations — that the prosecutor and various police officers fabricated evidence used at the criminal trial, law enforcement falsified police reports, and that the charges against them were unsupported by probable cause — is to challenge the validity of their convictions. The Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that "[u]nder Heck, a civil rights action for damages that would imply the invalidity of a conviction may not be brought until the subject conviction has been overturned." Hunt v. Michigan, 482 Fed. Appx. 20, 21 (6th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, as the Magistrate Judge noted, it is unclear whether some of Lyons-Bey's and Willis' claims attack the validity of their convictions. That said, the only injuries Plaintiffs allege are the convictions themselves. This, too, is barred by Heck, which provides that a § 1983 plaintiff "must prove not only that [a constitutional violation occurred], but that it caused him actual, compensable injury, which . . . does not encompass the injury of being convicted and imprisoned (until his conviction has been overturned)." Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7.
Plaintiffs' allegations concerning violations of Michigan law are also subject to dismissal. To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs "must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived [them] of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Waters v. City of Morristown, TN, 242 F.3d 353, 358-59 (6th Cir. 2001).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) directs the Court "to dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This statute applies to the claims of Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis. Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed above, the Objections of Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis are overruled.
Plaintiff Yalaunda Butts objects to the Magistrate Judge's "omission of [her] claim of racial discrimination and denial of access to the court allegations" from the R&R. (Dkt. 39 at 6).
The Magistrate Judge's R&R served to, among other things, summarily dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Willis on the grounds that they were legally insupportable. This is not the case for Plaintiff Butts' claims, which are allowed to move forward at this time. Accordingly, her objection is overruled.
Plaintiffs filed Motions for Reconsideration on November 16, 2017, November 27, 2017, and December 4, 2017. With the exceptions of the signature pages, these motions are all exactly the same.
Plaintiffs move for reconsideration on the grounds that they did not have adequate time to submit objections to the R&R. They claim that "[i]t would be a denial of access to the court, (sic) if Plaintiff is not allowed to file his objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation, where he has provided evidence that his pleadings were timely filed." (Dkt. 37 at 3). Plaintiffs correctly note that they timely sought an extension of time within which to file objections to the R&R.
The Court appreciates and understands Plaintiffs' concerns. To that end, on November 22, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motions to Extend [27, 28], and directed Plaintiffs to file their objections to the R&R by December 26, 2017 [33]. Plaintiffs filed their objections on January 8, 2018 and January 31, 2018.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' numerous filings, including the objections. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek reconsideration based on the fear that the Court will not consider their objections, the Motions for Reconsideration are denied as moot.
Denial of the motions is also appropriate because, as mentioned above, the R&R is well-reasoned. Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Court "and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect," nor have they shown that "correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case," the Motions for Reconsideration are denied. Hansmann v. Fid. Invs. Institutional Servs. Co., 326 F.3d 760, 767 (6th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting that Plaintiff's Civil Action Caption and Pleadings Represent the Amended Complaint [30] is the same as their previously filed Motion to Substitute Defendants [20], which was denied as moot.
The new motion will be denied in part. Plaintiffs seek to modify the case caption by removing certain defendants — the Oakland County and Wayne County Prosecutor's Offices — and add others. At this time, Plaintiff Yalaunda Butts is the only remaining plaintiff in this case. She is directed to file a Second Amended Complaint identifying her claims and the specific defendants she is suing. The Second Amended Complaint may not contain any claims pertaining to Lyons-Bey or Willis, as they are no longer involved in this case.
Plaintiffs Lyons-Bey and Butts filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleading/Relief from Judgment on November 21, 2017. However, it appears that the motion only pertains to Butts' claims. To that end, the Court declines to address the motion at this time. The Magistrate Judge will handle the Motion for Judgment on the Pleading/Relief from Judgment [32] only as it relates to Plaintiff Butts.
To the extent that the motion relates to Plaintiff Lyons-Bey, the motion is denied. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a motion for relief from judgment can be granted for the following reasons:
Plaintiff Lyons-Bey has failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under any of the provisions outlined by the rule.
For the reasons discussed above,
