Ghaith v. Rauschenberger, Case No. 09–14336–BC.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.
Citation778 F.Supp.2d 787
PartiesFawaz 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.
Docket NumberCase No. 09–14336–BC.
Decision Date10 March 2011

778 F.Supp.2d 787

Fawaz GHAITH, Plaintiff,
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.

Case No. 09–14336–BC.

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

March 10, 2011.

[778 F.Supp.2d 790]

Shereef H. Akeel, Akeel & Valentine, Troy, MI, for Plaintiff.John G. Fedynsky, Mark E. Donnelly, State Of Michigan Attorney General's Office, Lansing, MI, Carlito H. Young, Michael E. Rosati, Johnson, Rosati, Farmington Hills, MI, Lauren London, Dykema Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, for Defendants.

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Fawaz Ghaith believes that he was mistreated by his former wife, Defendant

[778 F.Supp.2d 791]

Dawn Rose Porter Ghaith, his mother- and father-in-law, Marion and Jerry Breasbois, and his daughter, Hanan Ghaith. He has highlighted some circumstantial evidence that would appear to corroborate his belief that his family schemed and lied to have him jailed and prosecuted for a crime he did not commit. While he was in jail awaiting trial—unable to raise a $500,000 bond—his wife, without consulting Plaintiff, brought their children from their home in Jordan to the United States and began a divorce proceeding in Midland County. After six months in custody, the prosecutors dropped the charges against him when they were unable to confirm his family's story.

As compelling as Plaintiff's case against his family may be, however, federal law does not provide a remedy against them. See Ghaith v. Rauschenberger, No. 09–14336, 2010 WL 4982795 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 2, 2010). The United States Constitution protects the rights and liberties of individuals against encroachment by governments, not other individual citizens. Section 1983, which was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 “to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if such deterrence fails,” provides a private right of action against persons acting “under color” of state law. Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161, 112 S.Ct. 1827, 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992) (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 254–57, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978)). It does not and cannot constitutionally govern private citizens acting on their own private agenda.

Plaintiff has not advanced any evidence that the state and municipal employees identified in his complaint acted in concert with his family or even had any reason to believe the information reported by his family was false. As a result, they cannot be held liable under § 1983 either. This is not to say Plaintiff is without a remedy. Indeed, if his wife and daughter falsely reported to authorities that he had committed a crime, they likely committed a crime themselves. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.411a(1)(b) (making the false report of a felony a felony under Michigan law, punishable by up to four years in prison and a $2,000 fine). Additionally, they may be liable to Plaintiff under Michigan tort law, as discussed in this court's earlier opinion. See Ghaith, No. 09–14336, 2010 WL 4982795. However, where there is no evidence that state or county officials were involved in any of the alleged misconduct, or even knew of it, Plaintiff has not presented a claim for which there is a remedy under federal law or a forum in federal court. Plaintiff's constitutional claims must be dismissed. If he wishes, Plaintiff may pursue redress of his grievances under state law.


Plaintiff's thirteen-count complaint identifies nine individual Defendants and two institutional Defendants. He contends, 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, 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). After a hearing on November

[778 F.Supp.2d 792]

30, 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Dawn's motion on December 2, 2010 [Dkt. # 56]. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against his former wife should be dismissed because Defendant Dawn is not a state actor. Plaintiff's tort claims against Defendant Dawn, however, stated a claim for relief and judgment on the pleadings was denied with respect to his claims against her under Michigan law. In permitting Plaintiff's state-law claims to proceed, the Court cautioned the parties that it would be unlikely to retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims against Defendant Dawn if all of the constitutional claims against the other Defendants were also dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

While Defendant Dawn's motion for judgment on the pleadings was under consideration, the remaining Defendants also filed motions for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings [Dkt. # 48 & 53]. The Bay County Defendants, including Dresser, Gordon, Miller, the Sheriff's Department, and the County, filed a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings on November 22, 2010. The Bay County Defendants contend that they are entitled to absolute or qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiff's claims. The Bay County Defendants further contend that Plaintiff has not identified sufficient evidence to defeat their entitlement to qualified immunity or absolute immunity. The State Defendants, including Burch, Newsham, and Rauschenberger, also filed a motion for summary judgment. The State Defendants similarly contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiff's claims lack factual support.


The motions present the Court with two different standards of review. The Bay County Defendants cite both the Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings standard and the Rule 56(a) summary judgment standard, while the State Defendants rely exclusively on Rule 56(a). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court assumes all “well pleaded factual allegations” are true and will not look beyond the pleadings in reaching a conclusion. Lowden v. Cnty. of Clare, 709 F.Supp.2d 540, 545 (E.D.Mich.2010) (citing 5C Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1368); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d) (directing the Court not to consider matters outside the pleadings). In considering a Rule 56(a) motion, by contrast, the Court may review the entire record in the case and will consider affidavits, deposition transcripts, and other documents in reaching a conclusion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Under Rule 56(a), the Court is obligated to construe facts in the Plaintiff's favor only if there is a genuine dispute as to what occurred, and there is no obligation to assume the well pleaded allegations in Plaintiff's complaint are true. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). With that in mind, the facts as alleged in Plaintiff's complaint are summarized below, but the Court will consider other relevant evidence in the appropriate circumstances.


Plaintiff and Defendant Dawn were married and had four children, Lana, Mohammed, Samer, and Hanan. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 17–18. In August 2008, Defendant Dawn and the 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 step-father, Defendants Marion and Jerry Breasbois. Id.

[778 F.Supp.2d 793]

¶¶ 25–27. But the couple's youngest son, Samer, did not have a passport, and was unable to leave the country. Id. Samer's Jordanian passport, in accordance with the country's laws, could only be renewed by Plaintiff, his father, unless Plaintiff was dead or in prison. Id. ¶ 28; see also [Dkt. # 74–m].

Sometime in August 2008, Hanan, the couple's eldest daughter, traveled to the United States to live with Defendants Marion and Jerry Breasbois. Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 29–30. According to Defendant Dawn, Hanan traveled to the United States because Hanan's uncle, Plaintiff's brother, beat her for carrying on a relationship with a boy in Jordan and Plaintiff refused to intervene. When Plaintiff learned 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. ¶ 39; see also [Dkt. 63–E]. The conversations were “pleasant.” Pl.'s Compl. ¶ 49. Plaintiff also accepted the Breasboises' invitation to a September 2 dinner at their residence. Id. ¶¶ 37–38.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the Breasboises contacted the Gladwin County Sheriff on August 29, 2008, and reported that Plaintiff was harassing and threatening them and their granddaughter. Id. ¶ 40. The Breasboises also contacted the Michigan State Police and reported that Plaintiff was harassing and threatening them. Id. ¶¶ 41–42. Plaintiff contends those reports were false, and part of a scheme to have him arrested and prosecuted. On September 1, 2008, Plaintiff confirmed the dinner invitation for the next evening, and was told to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Smith v. Aims, Civil Action 20-12013
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • January 12, 2022
    ...Rule 56(d), where, as here, the principal issues are qualified immunity and state governmental immunity. See Ghaith v. Rauschenberger, 778 F.Supp.2d 787, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (“If the Defendants are immune from suit, they should not be required to comply with the burdens of discovery….”). ......
  • Spencer v. Huron Cnty., Case No. 15-cv-12209
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • January 24, 2017
    ...245 F.3d 869, 874 (6th Cir. 2001)); Smith v. Thornburg, 136 F.3d 1070, 1077 (6th Cir. 1998) (same); see also Ghaith v. Rauschenberger, 778 F. Supp. 2d 787, 803 (E.D. Mich. 2011), aff'd, 493 F. App'x 731 (6th Cir. 2012). However, a finding of probable cause in a prior criminal hearing does n......
  • Tollison v. City of Independence, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-55-DLB-CJS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District of Kentucky
    • September 25, 2015
    ...assists in an arrest, they are entitled to rely on the arresting officer's determination of probable cause. Ghaith v. Rauschenberger, 778 F. Supp. 2d 787, 801 (E.D. Mich. 2011). He is "not required to conduct an independent investigation to personally satisfy [himself] that probable cause e......
  • U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. One, Civil Action Nos. H–09–1540
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 11, 2011
    ...whether, based on the record before it, Wells Fargo is entitled to equal footing with the defrauded investors. The court, exercising [778 F.Supp.2d 787] its broad equitable powers, agrees with the Receiver that the most equitable distribution of the $12 million is the distribution proposed ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT