haggart v. Detroit

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedOctober 27, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-13394
StatusUnknown

This text of haggart v. Detroit (haggart v. Detroit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
haggart v. Detroit, (E.D. Mich. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALEXANDER HAGGART, Case No. 2:19-cv-13394 Plaintiff, HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III v.

CITY OF DETROIT, et al.,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [33]

Plaintiff Alexander Haggart sued the City of Detroit, Detroit Police Officer Theopolis Williams, and two Detroit firefighters (Chief Patrick McNulty and Deputy Chief Robert Shinske) and filed a complaint that alleged constitutional claims for First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF 1, PgID 4–5, 10; see also ECF 34, PgID 475 (explaining that the crux of the complaint was First Amendment retaliation). Plaintiff also asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiff's civil rights and a malicious prosecution claim against Deputy Chief Shinske. ECF 1, PgID 10–12. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and asserted qualified immunity defenses. See ECF 33, PgID 345 (noting the standard for granting qualified immunity to state actors); see also ECF 3, PgID 24 (affirmative defenses).1 Plaintiff

1 Because "qualified immunity is an affirmative defense," defense counsel should in the future explicitly assert that each defendant is asserting qualified immunity as a defense. English v. Dyke, 23 F.3d 1086, 1089 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). responded to the motion but responded only to the summary judgment arguments about the § 1983 claims against Deputy Chief Shinske and Chief McNulty. See ECF 34, PgID 469–74 ("The evidence raises a question of fact as to Shinske and McNulty's

motivations . . . ."). The Court will therefore consider the Monell claim, § 1983 claim against Officer Williams, the § 1985 claims, and malicious prosecution claim abandoned. See Brown v. VHS of Mich., Inc., 545 F. App'x 368, 372 (6th Cir. 2013) ("[A] plaintiff is deemed to have abandoned a claim when a plaintiff fails to address it in response to a motion for summary judgment."); see also ECF 34, PgID 475. Thus, the only remaining claims are the § 1983 claims for First Amendment retaliation against Deputy Chief Shinske and Chief McNulty.

The Court will not hold a hearing on the motion. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f). For the following reasons, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants. BACKGROUND Plaintiff moonlights as a freelance photographer. ECF 34-2, PgID 499. Plaintiff photographs the aftermaths of accidents, crimes, and fires and then sells the photos to news agencies. Id. at 499–500. Plaintiff also posts the photos on a social media

account called Southeast Michigan Fire and Weather. Id. at 500–01. On the night of October 13 and the early morning of October 14, 2017, Plaintiff livestreamed a video on social media. ECF 33-1, PgID 353 (video filed in traditional manner); ECF 34-1, PgID 480. The video shows Plaintiff, a white man, and another white man, driving a vehicle slowly behind a black woman, who is walking on a sidewalk. ECF 33-1 at 0:00–3:30. Plaintiff and the other man in the vehicle claimed that the woman lit a mattress on fire in a building. Id. at 3:20–3:30; ECF 34-2, PgID 501. The two men allegedly could not report the woman for arson because the police and fire department were not answering calls. ECF 33-1 at 3:50–4:10. The two men

ultimately followed the woman for a mile until she ran into a house. Id. at 3:35–3:54. The two men claimed that they "held her at gun point for ten minutes" sometime during the pursuit. Id. at 4:35–4:38; 7:30–7:36. At one point, while driving down a street, Plaintiff stated that he had his pistol, even though he should not have been carrying it. Id. at 5:38–6:18. Plaintiff even asserted that he "wished he could" shoot the woman. Id. at 6:09–6:13. Towards the end of the video, one man asked the other, "You don't have any of the bad shit I just did on there, do you?" Id. at 9:50–9:58. The

other man confirmed that he did not. Id. at 9:57–10:01. The men then talked about how Plaintiff held the woman at gun point. Id. at 9:58–10:16. The next day, Patrick McNulty, Chief of the Fire Investigation Division, was notified of Plaintiff's video and began to investigate Plaintiff's conduct. ECF 34-3, PgID 536. Chief McNulty was concerned that the video showed vigilantism and so he forwarded the video to a sergeant in his office for review. Id. at 539–40. Chief McNulty

was specifically concerned with Plaintiff's "admissions made in the video about holding [the woman] at gunpoint" and Plaintiff's lack of a concealed carry license. Id. at 540. "[T]he investigation encompassed the whole act, the arson, the person who committed the arson, and the subsequent detainment or following of th[e] suspect." Id. at 542. Later that same day, Detroit Police took over the investigation, and Chief McNulty was no longer involved in the investigation. Id. at 549. A few days later, Plaintiff posted photos of a Detroit Fire Department vehicle outside a bar in Dearborn, Michigan. ECF 34-2, PgID 500; see also ECF 34-1, PgID 480–82. The vehicle belonged to Deputy Chief Robert Shinske. ECF 34-2, PgID 500.

The photo went viral, and the local news featured it in a story. Id. at 500–01; ECF 34-6; see also ECF 34-1, PgID 481.2 Deputy Chief Shinske received a five-day suspension because of the photo. ECF 34-5, PgID 604. Two months later, Plaintiff posted another photo of Deputy Chief Shinske's department vehicle; the vehicle was smashed into Shinske's house. ECF 34-2, PgID 513. Eighteen months later, in June 2019, Deputy Chief Shinske learned that

Plaintiff—who was not a Detroit Firefighter—was drinking beer and riding equipment in a firehouse. ECF 34-5, PgID 614–15; ECF 34-9, PgID 674. Under department policy, civilians are only allowed in a firehouse if they are invited but are not allowed after a certain time. ECF 34-4, PgID 580. Drinking is also forbidden inside firehouses. Id. at 581; ECF 34-5, PgID 622. Deputy Chief Shinske then banned Plaintiff from entering Detroit firehouses in two June 2019 orders.3 ECF 34-9,

PgID 674. Plaintiff later sued Defendants in August 2019. ECF 1, PgID 2.

2 The parties failed to attach the news article as an exhibit, but it is publicly available. See Randy Wimbley, Detroit fire chief investigated for taking department car to bar, Fox 2 Detroit (Oct. 18, 2017) https://bit.ly/3aF5I5n [https://perma.cc/9ZZV-BBLZ]. 3 Oddly, no party offered Deputy Chief Shinske's orders into evidence. Thus, the duration and extent of the ban is unclear. See ECF 34-4, PgID 589. LEGAL STANDARD The Court must grant a motion for summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A moving party must identify specific portions of the record that "it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party may not simply rest on the pleadings but must present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Adderley v. Florida
385 U.S. 39 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Mitchell v. Forsyth
472 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Garcetti v. Ceballos
547 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Hartman v. Moore
547 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Pearson v. Callahan
555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Holzemer v. City of Memphis
621 F.3d 512 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Hill v. Lappin
630 F.3d 468 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Snyder v. Phelps
562 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court, 2011)
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano
648 F.3d 365 (Sixth Circuit, 2011)
Ovall Dale Kendall v. The Hoover Company
751 F.2d 171 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley
675 F.3d 580 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Andre Coleman v. Bertina Bowerman
474 F. App'x 435 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)
Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter
175 F.3d 378 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
haggart v. Detroit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haggart-v-detroit-mied-2021.