Shuey v. State of Michigan

• Decision Date: 16 June 1952
• Docket Number: No. 11069.,11069.
• Citation: 106 F. Supp. 32
• Parties: SHUEY v. STATE OF MICHIGAN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

106 F. Supp. 32

SHUEY v. STATE OF MICHIGAN et al.

No. 11069.

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

June 16, 1952.

Alonzo D. Pettiford, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Perry A. Maynard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Michigan, Its Governor, Executives, Officer and Agents, John Doe and Richard Roe.

James M. Skillman and Charles S. Toy, Detroit, Mich., for Harry S. Toy.

M. F. Wolfgang, Detroit, Mich., for estate of Walter Norwood.

Paul T. Dwyer and Nathaniel H. Goldstick, Detroit, Mich., for City of Detroit, and Its Mayor.

KOSCINSKI, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois, was imprisoned at the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson, Michigan for a period of seventeen years following conviction and sentence in Recorder's Court, in the City of Detroit, on a charge of armed robbery. Later, he was granted a new trial and acquitted.

Claiming that he was falsely deprived of his rights of liberty; that he was not accorded due process of law and equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; that he was falsely prosecuted and imprisoned under "pretended color of rights of the law;" that he was convicted on false and perjurious testimony; that he was subjected to involuntary servitude, contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, he filed this suit for damages against the defendants named as follows: "The State of Michigan, a state and political division of the United States of America, its Governor, Executives, Officers and Agents, John Doe and Richard Roe, the City of Detroit, a municipal corporation of the state of Michigan, its Mayor, Harry S. Toy, Ex-Prosecuting Attorney for Wayne County, the estate of Walter Norwood, Juanita Oates, Detective Thompson, whose first name is unknown, but whose person is well known, Emmett Cunningham, John Doe and Richard Roe."

Motions to dismiss were filed by the State of Michigan, City of Detroit, the estate of Walter Norwood and Harry S. Toy, former Prosecuting Attorney of Wayne County, Michigan, these being the only defendants on whom service of summons was made.

Prior to the hearing of these motions plaintiff discontinued as to "the present Governor of the State of Michigan" and also to "the Mayor of the City of Detroit."

Amendment XI of the Constitution of the United States provides:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

It is elementary that the State is a sovereign and cannot be sued without its consent. If such immunity from suit is waived it must be under terms and conditions specified in such consent or in the waiver of its immunity from suit or liability. Besides, it appears that in the prosecution and imprisonment of the plaintiff in the state penal institution, the State was acting in its sovereign and governmental capacity, as distinguished from any proprietary or business function.

The only waiver of the State's immunity to suit under Michigan law is founded upon legislation establishing the Court of Claims under 27.3548(1) et seq., Mich.Stat.Ann.1951 Cum.Supp., Comp.Laws 1948, § 691.101 et seq. Plaintiff has not availed himself of this statute which provides under § 27.3548(11½) that:

"No claim shall be maintained against the state unless the claimant shall, within 1 year after such claim shall have accrued, file in the office of the clerk of the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to file a claim against the state * * *."

Motion of State of Michigan to dismiss is granted.

The motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the City of Detroit must likewise be granted, since immunity to suit is accorded not only to a State, but also to its political subdivisions, such as cities, when acting in a governmental capacity and performing governmental functions, as distinguished from proprietary or business functions. The alleged liability to suit of the City of Detroit stems from the charge that members of the Detroit City Police force were active in the prosecution of the plaintiff. The City of Detroit, a municipal corporation, acted in this matter in its governmental capacity, in maintaining an organized police force for the welfare, protection and safety of the people of the City of Detroit. In that respect its police department, whether created by home rule legislation, charter, or act of the Legislature, is an arm of the sovereign state. Tzatzken v. City of Detroit, 226 Mich. 603, 198 N.W. 214.

Furthermore, if plaintiff's complaint be construed as based upon the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, the City of Detroit is not a "person" to subject it to liability under those acts. Hewitt v. City...