Miner v. Ogemaw Cnty. Rd. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 02 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-11192 |
| Parties | LARRY W. MINER, Plaintiff, v. OGEMAW COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION and PATRICK J. REINKE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
At some unidentified time, Defendant Ogemaw County Road Commission (“Ogemaw”) installed a drain culvert under Sage Lake Road. The culvert diverts water from Robert Reid's land to Plaintiff's land, which Defendants argue is the water's natural course but for the construction of Sage Lake Road. Nothing in the evidentiary record clearly reflects the culvert's purpose: where Ogemaw intended the water to go after reaching Plaintiff's land.
Plaintiff repeatedly blocked the culvert to prevent it from flooding his house and land. Each time, Ogemaw unblocked and trimmed it. The culvert still floods and physically occupies Plaintiff's land by approximately 0.33 feet, which he contends are takings. Ogemaw, by contrast, asserts an easement for the culvert and that the flooding is not a taking. Plaintiff pursues a federal and state takings claim a due-process claim, and a claim for common-law trespass.
Among others, the questions before this Court are whether the physical occupation of a drain culvert on private property is a taking, whether Ogemaw is immune from injunctive relief whether road-commission employees are immune from trespass claims, and whether the culvert's current purpose is public or private.
In 2017, Plaintiff Larry Wade Miner purchased Lots 2 and 3 in the East Twin Subdivision.[1]ECF Nos. 3 at PageID.58; 30 at PageID.311. He purchased adjacent Lot 4 on June 8, 2020. ECF No. 30-2 at PageID.338. The following survey shows his property in relation to Sage Lake Road:
(Image Omitted)
As reflected in the survey, the northern boundary of Plaintiff's property abuts the south side of Sage Lake Road, an Ogemaw County highway. ECF No. 3 at PageID.58. Local Township Supervisor Robert Reid[2] owns the real property on the north side of Sage Lake Road and, according to Plaintiff, is the beneficiary of the culvert. Id.; ECF No. 47 at PageID.509.
Plaintiff claims Ogemaw installed the metal culvert under Sage Lake Road within the last ten years. ECF No. 3 at PageID.58. Ogemaw believe the culvert was installed in 1961 “as part of the federal aid project to improve the Sage Lake Road public right-of-way.” ECF No. 48 at PageID.645 (citing ECF No. 48-2 at PageID.733); see also ECF No. 30 at PageID.317.
Plaintiff contacted Ogemaw on “dozens of occasions during 2017-2019.” ECF No. 3 at PageID.59. On October 24, 2017, he notified Ogemaw for the first of “many of times regarding water flooding his crawl space.” ECF No. 30-2 at PageID.342. Three days later, Ogemaw “determined” that “the ditch in front of [Plaintiff's] house” is “off [Ogemaw's] right of way and on [Plaintiff's] private property[,] which will need to be taken care of by Plaintiff.” Id. at PageID.343.
In July 2019, Plaintiff contacted Ogemaw, again, demanding “just compensation” for taking his property by flooding it. ECF Nos. 3 at PageID.59; 30 at PageID.311-12. In August 2019, Ogemaw County Road Commission Managing Director Patrick Reinke told Plaintiff that Ogemaw County would not pay for his property damage due to a drainage easement. See ECF Nos. 3 at PageID.59; 30-2 at PageID.348. Plaintiff contacted Ogemaw County Drain Commissioner Mike DeMatio, who allegedly “confirmed that Defendant [Ogemaw] did not have any drainage easement” for the culvert. ECF No. 3 at PageID.59. Both parties' surveys demonstrate that Ogemaw installed the culvert outside the Sage Lake Road right-of-way, thus, encumbering Lot 4. Id.; ECF No. 48-2 at PageID.763.
On January 2, 2020, Plaintiff blocked the culvert to prevent flooding on his property. ECF No. 30-2 at PageID.343. The next day, Ogemaw County employees admittedly entered Plaintiff's land without permission to unblock and to cut the culvert so that it no longer physically trespassed onto Plaintiff's land. See ECF No. 30 at PageID.313 . The project cost approximately $296.95 in labor and associated expenses. ECF No. 30-2 at PageID.343.
Reinke contacted Ogemaw County Sherriff's Deputy Justin Noffsinger and Ogemaw County Prosecutor Ladonna Schultz, seeking criminal charges against Plaintiff for blocking the culvert. See ECF No. 3 at PageID.60. Noffsinger filed a police report, id. (citing ECF No. 3 at PageID.77-79), and then informed Plaintiff that he faced criminal charges if he blocked the culvert again. Id. at PageID.61.
The 12 inches of culvert that Defendants removed did not stop Plaintiff's problems. In April 2020, the culvert flooded Plaintiff's land again, extensively damaging his property. Id. Then the culvert was blocked again. Id. Noffsinger interrogated Plaintiff about the blocking, which he denied. See Id. at PageID.62. On April 30, 2020, Schultz charged Plaintiff with willful and malicious destruction of “the personal property of Ogemaw County Road Commission,”[3] which he believes was initiated in retaliation for exercising his property rights. Id. (citing ECF No. 3 at PageID.81-83).
Defendants continued to monitor the culvert on Plaintiff's property, and they again entered his land without permission to unblock the culvert on July 1, July 6, and July 13, 2020. ECF No. 30-2 at PageID.344.
After Plaintiff filed this suit, Schultz pursued the criminal charges against Plaintiff. See ECF No. 3 at PageID.63. In January 2021, he retained Kuhn Rogers to pursue the immediate case on his behalf. Id. In February 2021, Kuhn Rogers made a FOIA request to Hill Township and Ogemaw County, to which Ogemaw responded on March 3, 2021. Id. The next day, Schultz obtained a warrant for Plaintiff's arrest based on the May 5, 2020 complaint and warrant. Id. According to Plaintiff, the FOIA request revealed that Defendants Ogemaw, Schultz, Nossinger, and Reid worked together to deprive him of his property rights. Id. Among the records is a screenshot of texts between Reid and Reinke, both government employees. ECF Nos. 3 at PageID.63; 30-2 at PageID.385; 48-2 at PageID.789.
On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff brought the instant eight-count complaint in the Ogemaw County Circuit Court, alleging: (Count I) violation of the federal Takings Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (Count II) violation of the Michigan takings clause, Mich. Const. of 1963, art. X, § 2 (2006); (Count III) violation of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (Count IV) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (Count V) trespass, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.552; (Count VI) malicious prosecution, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2907; (Count VII) abuse of process, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.369; and (Count VIII) unlawful arrest. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.5-19; see also Miner v. Schultz, No. 21-651788-CZ (Mich. 34th Cir. Ct. 2021). Forty-one days later, Defendants removed the case to this Court, which exercised federal-question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1.
After a series of stipulations and dismissals, only Counts I, II, III, and V remain against Defendants Ogemaw and Reinke. ECF No. 36; see ECF Nos. 18; 28. Ogemaw and Reinke filed a motion to dismiss those four counts, ECF No. 30, and a motion to bar four of Plaintiff's witnesses from testifying, ECF No. 39, which were both denied, Miner v. Ogemaw Cnty. Rd. Comm'n, No. 1:21-CV-11192, 2022 WL 957534, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 29, 2022).
Plaintiff has since filed a motion for summary judgment on Counts I, II, and V. ECF. No 47, to which Defendants have responded, ECF No. 51; 54, and Plaintiff has replied, ECF No. 53.
Similarly, Defendants have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on Counts I, II, III, and V, ECF No. 48, to which Plaintiff has responded, ECF No. 51, and Defendants have replied, ECF No. 55.
Counts I, II, III, and V will be addressed in turn in Part II. As explained hereafter, Plaintiff will prevail as a matter of law with respect to Counts I, II, and V, and a genuine question of material fact remains with respect to Count III.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted 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). The movant has the initial burden of “identifying those 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). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, who must set out specific facts showing “a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (citation omitted). The nonmovant must show more than “some metaphysical doubt as to material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Indeed, the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of the nonmovant does not establish a genuine issue of material fact. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.
The court must review the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant to determine “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52; see Lossia v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., 895 F.3d 423, 428 (6th Cir. 2018).
Summary judgment will be granted if the nonmovant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to...
To continue reading
Request your trial