Ghaith v. Rauschenberger
| Decision Date | 02 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case Number 09-14336-BC |
| Parties | FAWAZ GHAITH, Plaintiff, v. DON RAUSCHENBERGER, JR., MARION BREASBOIS, JERRY BREASBOIS, RICHARD I. DRESSER, SCOTT GORDON, DAWN ROSE PORTER GHAITH, BAY COUNTY, BAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL NEWSHAM, MICHAEL E. BURCH and JOHN E. MILLER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Plaintiff Fawaz Ghaith filed a thirteen-count complaint against nine individual Defendants and two institutional Defendants on November 4, 2009, contending, inter alia, that the Defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights to parent, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to a fair trial. The defendants include his wife at the time, Dawn Rose Porter Ghaith; her mother and stepfather, Marion and Jerry Breasbois; Bay County Assistant Prosecutors, Richard I. Dresser and Scott Gordon; Michigan State Police Officers, Don Rauschenberger, Jr., Michael Newsham, and Mark E. Burch; Bay County Sheriff John E. Miller; the Bay County Sheriff's Department; and Bay County.
On August 26, 2010, Dawn Rose Porter Ghaith ("Defendant Dawn") filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Defendant Dawn contends that Plaintiff's constitutional claims, which were filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 are barred because Defendant Dawn is not a state actor. Defendant Dawn further contends that Plaintiff's state tort claims have substantive and procedural defects. Defendant Dawn contends that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all of Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons explained below, Defendant Dawn's motion will be granted in part and Plaintiff s constitutional claims against Defendant Dawn will be dismissed because she did not act "under color" of state law. Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant Dawn, however, present claims for relief that are "plausible" on their face, and Defendant Dawn's motion for judgment on those claims will be denied.
In considering a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court assumes all "well pleaded factual allegations" are true. Lowden v. Cnty of Clare, 709 F. Supp. 2d 540, 545 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (citing 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1368). Accordingly, the factual summary below is drawn from Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff and Defendant Dawn were married and remained married throughout the events relevant to this case. They have four children, Lana, Mohammed, Samer, and Hanan. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 17-18. In August 2008, Defendant Dawn and their four children resided in Jordan, but Plaintiff divided his time between Jordan, where he lived with his family, and the United States, where he worked as a truck driver. Id. ¶¶ 22-24. Defendant Dawn wished to divorce Plaintiff and return to the United States with the couple's children to be nearer Defendant Dawn's mother and stepfather, Defendants Marion and Jerry Breasbois. Id. ¶¶ 25-27. However, the Ghaiths' youngest son, Samer, did not have a valid passport and was unable to leave Jordan. Id. Moreover, Samer's Jordanian passport, in accordance with the country's laws, could only be renewed by Plaintiff, Samer's father, unless Plaintiff was dead or in prison. Id. ¶ 28.
Sometime in August 2008, Hanan, the couple's eldest daughter, traveled to the United States to live with Defendants Marion and Jerry Brisbois. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. According to Defendant Dawn, Hanan traveled to the United States because Hanan's uncle, Plaintiff's brother, beat her with a belt for carrying on a telephone conversation with a boy in Jordan and Plaintiff refused to intervene. When Plaintiff learned that Hanan was in the United States, he called her on the telephone at the Breasboises' residence and spoke to her several times between August 28, 2008 and September 2, 2008. Id. at ¶ 39. The conversations were "pleasant." Id. Plaintiff also accepted the Breasboises' invitation to a September 2 dinner at their residence. Id. ¶¶ 37-38.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, however, Marion Breasbois contacted the Gladwin County Sheriff on August 29, 2008, and falsely reported that Plaintiff was harassing and threatening them and their granddaughter.1 Id. ¶ 40. The Breasboises also contacted the Bay County Sheriff and the Michigan State Police and falsely reported that Plaintiff was harassing and threatening them. Id. ¶¶ 41-42. On September 1, 2008, Plaintiff confirmed the dinner invitation for the next evening, and was told to arrive at their home at 5:00 p.m. Id. ¶ 44. On September 2, 2008, the day of the planned dinner, the Breasboises contacted Defendant Rauschenberger of the Michigan State Police and falsely reported that Plaintiff was coming to the Breasboises' home at 5:00 p.m. that evening to take Hanan back to Jordan. Id. ¶¶ 46-48. The Breasboises also told Defendant Rauschenberger that Plaintiff had threatened to kill them, Hanan, and Defendant Dawn. Id.
Defendant Rauschenberger came to the Breasboises' home at 1:00 p.m. on the afternoon of September 2, 2008 to interview the Breasboises and Hanan about the alleged threats made by Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 48. Defendant Rauschenberger arranged for Hanan to call Plaintiff on the telephone at 1:20 p.m. in an attempt to induce Plaintiff to repeat the threats. Id. ¶¶ 45, 50. Plaintiff spoke to Hanan and the Breasboises for twenty minutes, but he did not make any incriminating statements. Id.
Defendant Rauschenberger then informed other State Police officers and local law enforcement agencies that Plaintiff, a "very Arab looking" man, had threatened the Breasboises and suggested that Plaintiff was planning to engage in an "honor killing" of Hanan. Id. ¶¶ 53-54. Defendant Rauschenberger also contacted Defendant Gordon of the Bay County Prosecutor's office and Defendant Gordon instructed Rauschenberger to arrest Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 55-57.
Plaintiff arrived at the Breasboises' home with groceries to prepare dinner at 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2008. Id. ¶ 58. No one was present, so Plaintiff waited in his car and called Defendant Dawn in Jordan. Id. ¶ 59. Defendant Dawn then contacted the Michigan State Police, and told them that Plaintiff had arrived at the Breasboises' home to follow through on his threats. Id. ¶¶ 60-63. Defendants Rauschenberger, Newsham, and Burch then went to the Breasboises' home, arrested Plaintiff, and searched his vehicle. Id. The search revealed groceries, but no weapons or other contraband. Id. ¶ 65-67. Plaintiff was charged with four counts of extortion, and transported to the Bay County Jail where he was held on a $500,000 bond. Id. ¶ 75-76.
Jordanian authorities were informed of Plaintiff's arrest and issued a new passport to Samer with his mother's permission. Id. ¶ 77-80. Defendant Dawn then traveled to the United States with Samer, Lana, and Mohammed, arriving on September 11, 2008. Id. ¶ 81.
Plaintiff was later tried on the extortion charges, but because an improper jury instruction was provided, the Honorable William J. Caprathe declared a mistrial. Id. ¶ 90. On the eve of second trial, the Bay County Prosecutor's Office dismissed all the charges against Plaintiff and he was released from the Bay County Jail after spending 196 days in custody. Id. ¶¶ 92-93. The charges were dropped because investigators were unable to confirm that the threatening phone calls allegedly made by Plaintiff actually occurred. The phone company had no record of the alleged calls.
On June 12, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants listed above in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. [Dkt. # 1]. Pursuant to the Court's Local Rules, the case was assigned to the Honorable John Feikens in Detroit because Plaintiff now resides in Wayne County. E.D. Mich. L.R. 83.10. Defendants, however, challenged the assignment of the case to the Southern Division. Ultimately, the case was reassigned to the Court's Northern Division in Bay City on April 22, 2010, over Plaintiff's objection.
Count I of Plaintiff's complaint contends that the Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff's constitutional right to parent by "fraudulently procuring a Jordanian passport for" Samer and "conspiring to circumvent" Jordanian law. U.S. Const. amend 14; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983). Counts II, III, and IV contend that the Defendants violated Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to a fair trial, and to be free from excessive bail. U.S. Const. amends. 4, 5, 6, 8, 14; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count V contends that Defendants conspired to interfere with Plaintiff's civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Count VI contends that Defendant Bay County had a custom or policy of violating civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Count VII contends that Defendants falsely arrested Plaintiff in violation of Michigan law. Count VIII contends that Defendants falsely imprisoned Plaintiff in violation of Michigan law. Count IX contends that Defendants maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff in violation of Michigan law. Count X contends that Defendants abused the judicial process causing harm to Plaintiff in violation of Michigan law. County XI contends Defendants engaged in "concert of action" to tortiously harm Plaintiff. County XII contends that Defendants engaged in a "civil conspiracy" to tortiously harm Plaintiff. Count XIII contends that Defendant Dresser defamed Plaintiff. Defendant Dawn is a named Defendant in each of the Counts except for Counts VI and XIII.
Defendant Dawn contends that she is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to each of Plaintiff's claims....
To continue reading
Request your trial