Schultz v. City of Wyo.
| Decision Date | 30 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-940 |
| Parties | MICHAEL J. SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WYOMING, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Honorable Robert Holmes Bell
This is a civil action brought by a pro se plaintiff. The cases arises out of a ticket that plaintiff received for trespassing on March 15, 2014. The incident occurred on South Division Avenue in Wyoming, Michigan, at a now closed restaurant known as G's Grill.
On September 15, 2015, plaintiff filed his complaint. He named the City of Wyoming; Mayor Jack Poll; City Council Members William VerHurst, Richard Pastoor, Joanne Vorhees, Sam Bolt, Dan Burrill, and Kent Vanderwood; City Manager Curtis Holt; the Wyoming Police Department; Officer Stephen Rellinger; Captain Kim Koster; Lieutenant Scoot Gardner; Director of Police and Fire Services (Police Chief) James Carmody; Wyoming City Attorney Jack Sluiter; the 62-A District Court; the Honorable Steven M. Timmers; the Honorable Pablo Cortes; the former owner of G's Grill, Joseph VanHorn; and the former cook at G's Grill, Ryan Wade. Plaintiff seeks an award of damages. (Complaint ¶¶ 39-40, ECF No. 1, PageID.5-6). In addition, he seeks injunctive relief compelling the 62-A District Court to expunge its records regarding persons convicted of trespassing since 1990, and to force the City of Wyoming to implement training sessions for officers and supervisory personnel. (Complaint ¶¶ 37-38). Plaintiff also wants Officer Rellinger, Mr. VanHorn, and Mr. Wade "to face State charges." (Complaint ¶ 41).
The matter is now before the Court on a Rule 12(c) motion by all defendants other than defendants Van Horn and Wade.1 (ECF No. 35). Defendants' motion has been pending since January 18, 2016. Plaintiff elected not to file a response.
For the reasons set forth herein, defendant's motion will be granted and all plaintiff's claims against the moving defendants will be dismissed. All plaintiff's claims against defendants Van Horn and Wade will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to the statutory authority provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).2
"Motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) are analyzed under the same de novo standard as motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 2008). Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 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, 555 (2007) ). While this notice pleading standard does not require "detailed" factual allegations, it does require more than labels and the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Generally, when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, and draw all reasonable factual inferences in plaintiff's favor. See Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008). "[C]ourts 'are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.' " Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680-81 (2009); Albrecht v. Treon, 617 F.3d 890, 893 (6th Cir. 2010). Courts are not required to conjure up unpleaded allegations, nor accept unwarranted factual inferences. See Total Benefits Planning, 552 F.3d at 434. "To survive a motion to dismiss, [plaintiff] must allege 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Michigan Dep't of Educ., 615 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 695 F.3d 428, 435 (6th Cir. 2012).
Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by licensed attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even the lenient treatment generally given pro se pleadings has its limits, however. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). "A plaintiff must 'plead [ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.' " Albrecht, 617 F.3d at 893 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). "A plaintiff falls short if [] he pleads facts 'merely consistent with the defendant's liability' or if the alleged facts do not 'permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct[.]' " Albrecht, 617 F.3d at 893 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79).
In deciding motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is generally limited to examination of the complaint alone. Nevertheless, the Court may also take into account exhibits to the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), as well as documents referred to in the complaint but not attached, and matters of public record. See Wingetv. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2008). Thus, the Court may refer to documents attached to, or referred in, plaintiff's amended complaint, as well as the matters of public record. See Amini v. Oberlin College, 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) (publicly filed records); Greenberg v. Life Ins. Co. of Va., 177 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir. 1999) (); QQC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 258 F. Supp.2d 718, 721 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (same).
Plaintiff alleges the following facts. G's Grill is now closed, but on March 15, 2014, it was located on South Division Avenue, Wyoming, Michigan. (Complaint ¶¶ 6, 18). Joseph VanHorn is the former owner and Ryan Wade was a cook at G's Grill. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 33).
On March 15, 2014, at approximately 1:00 p.m., plaintiff entered G's Grill and sat down at the table provided for handicapped customers. Plaintiff states that there were no other customers in the restaurant. Plaintiff had his service dog with him and states that he placed an order with a waitress for food and drink. Plaintiff indicates that he is a diabetic. "It being late in the day for [him] to eat, he was feeling the effects of low blood sugar" and "sat quietly with his eyes closed." (Id. ¶¶ 18-19).
Plaintiff states that he is "very hard of hearing." (Id. ¶ 18). He alleges that he (Id.).
Despite his hearing difficulties, plaintiff states: Plaintiff indicates that Officer Rellinger ordered him to come outside. The officer requested plaintiff's driver's licence and his service dog's identification. Plaintiff supplied the officer with the requested information and card entitled "You have just committed a crime." (Id. ¶ 21). At approximately 1:56 p.m., plaintiff received ticket No. 1620 for trespassing. Plaintiff's hearing was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 2014. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.8). On April 29, 2014, the Honorable Pablo Cortes of the 62-A District Court issued an order indicating that a condition of plaintiff's bond was having no contact with G's Grill. (ECF. No. 1-3, PageID.9). Plaintiff states that the trespassing charge was later dismissed. (Complaint ¶ 23).
Plaintiff had filed a complaint with the Wyoming Police Department regarding Officer Rellinger's actions before the trespassing charge was resolved. He received a phone call from Captain Kim Koster. She referred the matter to Lieutenant Scoot Gardner. Lt. Gardner informed plaintiff that he would have to file a new complaint after the charge against him was resolved. Plaintiff states that he called Lt. Gardner after the case was resolved and that Gardner failed to return the phone call. (Id. ¶ 23). Plaintiff made a complaint to Captain Koster and she found that "nothing wrong was done." Plaintiff sent a message requesting a meeting with Mayor Jack Poll, which the mayor declined after he had been informed by "the Police Director, City Manager, and Prosecutor" that "nothing wrong was done." Plaintiff then sent messages to the CityCouncil Members and the City Manager, and they declined to talk to plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 24).
Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled. (Id. ¶¶ 34-36). He criticizes City Attorney Jack Slutier's knowledge of the laws governing trespassing charges and states that he gave the City Attorney copies of State laws and ADA laws, and that three times the City Attorney laid them back on the table and tried to walk away. (Id. ¶ 32). Plaintiff believes that the 62-A District Court is no better because the judges refused to read the law that he handed to them and issued "boiler plate restraining orders that state things that have nothing to do with 'trespassing[.]' " (Id.).
State judges enjoy absolute immunity from...
To continue reading
Request your trial