Rideout v. Shelby TWP

• Docket Number: 22-11597
• Decision Date: 11 September 2023
• Parties: WILLIE J. RIDEOUT, JR., Plaintiff, v. SHELBY TWP, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

1

WILLIE J. RIDEOUT, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
SHELBY TWP, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-11597

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

September 11, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 36)

F. Kay Behm, United States District Judge.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, Willie J. Rideout, Jr., initially filed this civil rights complaint on July 14, 2022. (ECF No. 1). Rideout has since twice amended his complaint and the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is now the operative complaint. (ECF No. 30). Defendants Shelby Township, Shelby Township Police Department, Chief of Police Robert Shelide, Sgt, Joseph Wojcik, Sgt. Mark Benedettini, Det./Lt. Terrance Hogan, Sgt. Kevin Bailey, Det. Ermir Vila, Ofc. Justin Goebel and Det./Sgt. Robert Heisler move for partial dismissal of the SAC. (ECF No. 36). This matter is fully briefed, and the court held a hearing on August 30, 2023. For the reasons set

2

forth below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion to dismiss the SAC.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from Rideout's arrest after a series of protests against the Shelby Township Chief of Police, Robert Shelide, a defendant here. On June 16, 2020, Chief Shelide was suspended for thirty days after having made multiple posts on a Twitter Account using a pseudonym supporting racist ideals and endorsing police brutality. (ECF No. 30, ¶¶ 15-20). On July 1, 2020, July 15, 2020, and July 20, 2020, Rideout participated in protests against Shelide. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 32. On the evening of July 20, 2020, local media interviewed Rideout, who criticized Shelide's return from suspension and called for his resignation. Id. at ¶ 33.

According to the SAC, in response to Rideout's criticisms, the named Defendants worked together to retaliate against him for exercising his constitutional rights under the First Amendment. (ECF No. 30, ¶ 34). Rideout alleges that Shelide and the police officer defendants colluded to conduct a pretextual investigation of his activities on July 20, 2020 to fabricate a misdemeanor charge of violating Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.602 (failure to comply with the order or direction of a police officer) and presented false or misleading

3

facts to the prosecutor's office. Id. at ¶ 35. No other protester was arrested for their participation in the July 20, 2020 protests/demonstrations. Id. at ¶ 37. The SAC alleges that Defendant Ermir Villa's police report, which served as the basis for the warrant, was untruthful and failed to include exculpatory evidence. Id. at ¶ 43. The SAC further alleges that Villa, the other Defendant officers, and Shelide were all aware at the time the arrest warrant was obtained that Rideout sought to cooperate with officers at the protest, asked for more time to disperse the crowd, and the officer on the ground granted that request. Id. at ¶ 44. Despite this knowledge, Defendants colluded to omit this information from the presentation of evidence to the prosecutor and magistrate who issued the warrant. Id. at ¶ 45.

In 2021, Rideout filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on a lack of probable cause and insufficient evidence. (ECF No. 30, ¶ 79). After an evidentiary hearing, the state court judge dismissed the charges, ruling:

a) “I would note just as an aside, that I thought it was somewhat unusual -- somewhat unusual for the Defendant (“Rideout”) to be charged after the fact and arrested several days later rather than the date of the alleged incident, which typically would be the case and was the case on some of these other matters.” People of the State of Michigan v Willie James Rideout, Case No 20-1161ST, Evidentiary Hearing April 18, 2022, Transcript pg 4.

4

b) “As I've indicated, I spent a lot of time looking at the videos. The video shows a -- a number of times where the Defendant, Mr. Rideout, did discuss issues with the police officers involved. It did seem like he was trying to control the crowd; control the participants. At one point, directing 6 them off of the roadway, and it did appear that he was at -- at certain times assisting the police officers. I did see that he was, in fact, thanked by one of the police officers for that assistance.” Transcript pg. 5.

c) “I just did not feel that there was sufficient evidence under the circumstances to sustain the charge and to go to trial on the matter.” Transcript pg. 6-7.

d) Case was dismissed.

(ECF No. 30, ¶ 82). This lawsuit followed on July 14, 2022.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court “must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving party] ... [and] accept all well-pled factual allegations as true.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 341 F.3d 559, 562 (6th Cir. 2003). The complaint must provide “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545

5

(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Moreover, the complaint must “contain[ ] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009).

A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, such as “when an affirmative defense ... appears on its face.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the nonmoving party pleads facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [moving party] is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. However, a claim does not have “facial plausibility” when the “well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. The factual allegations “must do more than create speculation or suspicion of a legally cognizable cause of action; they must show entitlement to relief.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 500 F.3d at 527. Showing entitlement to relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

6

In evaluating the allegations in the complaint, the court must be mindful of its limited task when presented with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court does not consider whether the factual allegations are probably true; instead a court must accept the factual allegations as true, even when skeptical. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (a court must proceed “on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)”); id. at 556 (“[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable”); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations”). Indeed, in assessing the sufficiency of a complaint, the court must determine only whether “‘the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims,' not whether the plaintiff can ultimately prove the facts alleged.” See United States v. SouthEast Eye Specialists, PLLC, 570 F.Supp.3d 561, 574 (M.D. Tenn. 2021) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002)).

Defendants have attached a copy of the police report and videos of the protests and Rideout's arrest. Defendants point to Bailey v. City of Ann Arbor, 860 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2017) in support. In Bailey, the court considered a security video of an armed robbery, which the plaintiff had claimed contradicted the

7

affidavit's description of the perpetrator. Id. The court considered the video for two reasons: first, it was mentioned throughout the complaint and second, it captured the entire incident. Id. Here, both the police report and the videos are mentioned in the complaint and there is no suggestion that the videos are incomplete. Accordingly, the court may consider this evidence in evaluating the motion to dismiss. See also, Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Va., 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir. 1999) (when “a document is referred to in the complaint and is central to the plaintiff's claim ..., the defendant may submit an authentic copy to the court to be considered on a motion to dismiss.”).

B. Claims Against Defendants Wojcik, Benedettini, Hogan, Bailey, Goebel, and Heisler

These Defendants argue that the SAC does not sufficiently identify their personal involvement in the events identified in the complaint. Defendants contend that they did not participate in seeking charges, arresting or prosecuting Rideout. (ECF No. 30, Exs. A-C). Instead, only Defendant Vila requested a warrant from the Prosecutor. Id. at Ex. B, p. 18. None of these Defendants effectuated Rideout's arrest or participated in the prosecution. Id. at Exs. A-B. Accordingly, Defendants argue they should be dismissed from this suit. Rideout argues that

8

“all counts are valid at this time as no discovery has been conducted.” (ECF No. 43, PageID.562).

To prevail on a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must show personal involvement by the defendant in the constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Taylor v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 69 F.3d 76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must allege facts showing that the defendant participated, condoned,...