Tawfiq v. Hines

• Decision Date: 29 August 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-10328
• Parties: NERI TAWFIQ, Plaintiff, v. JAMES HINES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

NERI TAWFIQ, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES HINES, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-10328

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

August 29, 2022

Paul D. Borman District Judge

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 7)

Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge

I. RECOMMENDATION

For the following reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 7).

II. REPORT

A. Introduction

After Neri Tawfiq had an alleged “outburst” at the VA's Saginaw Medical Center, officials implemented a “patient flag” which required Tawfiq to check in with VA police whenever he arrived at a VA facility for a medical appointment. Believing that the flag led to several dangerous encounters with police, Tawfiq filed for an injunction in state court, which, despite naming only the Saginaw Medical

1

Center's Chief of Staff, James Hines, would prohibit any VA employee from approaching Tawfiq to enforce the patient flag. But before the state court could conduct a hearing on the matter, Hines removed the action to this Court and later moved for summary judgment, arguing that Tawfiq's requested injunction would prevent VA employees from carrying out their official duties. Accordingly, Hines argues that Tawfiq effectively seeks an injunction against the United States, which is barred by sovereign immunity.

B. Factual Background

Neri Tawfiq is a veteran and a patient of the Veteran's Health Administration. (ECF No. 7-2, PageID.56-58). Tawfiq worked as a pharmacist at the VA's Saginaw Medical Center until March 2021 when Christopher Cauley, the Director of the Medical Center, terminated Plaintiff for inappropriate “conduct” upon the recommendation of Tawfiq's supervisor. (ECF No. 7-3, PageID.60). Cauley sent Tawfiq a letter to inform him of the decision; however, the letter did not explain why Tawfiq's supervisor recommended that he be terminated, and Tawfiq went to the VA later that day to discuss his termination with his supervisor. (Id. at PageID.60-62; ECF No. 7-4, PageID.64-65). According to Hines, Tawfiq had an “outburst” when he returned to the medical center, which included “banging on the door” of the “pharmacy office” and demanding to speak with his “former supervisors.” (ECF No. 7, PageID.38; ECF No. 7-2, PageID.56). Apparently, some members of the

2

pharmacy staff felt that Tawfiq threatened their “personal safety” during the incident. (ECF No. 7-2, PageID.56).

About a week later, the Saginaw VA Medical Center's “Disruptive Behavior Committee” (“DBC”) reviewed Tawfiq's outburst and determined that he “posed a risk to patient and staff safety when visiting VA medical facilities as a patient.” (ECF No. 7, PageID.39 (citing ECF No. 7-2., PageID.56)). Based on that determination, the Committee placed a “Patient Record Flag” in Tawfiq's record which required Tawfiq to “check in with VA Police” whenever he arrived at a VA facility. (ECF No. 7-2, PageID.57). After checking in, VA police were required to “escort[]” Plaintiff to and from his appointments. (Id.) On at least one occasion after the DBC implemented this flag, officers at the Saginaw Medical Center had to escort Tawfiq from the facility after he entered the building without first checking in with officers. (ECF No. 7-4, PageID.68).

Tawfiq unsuccessfully appealed this flag to James Hines, the Chief of Staff at the Saginaw Medical Center and later filed an application for a personal protective order (“PPO”) against Hines in the Saginaw County Circuit Court. (ECF No. 1, PageID.9-13; ECF No. 7-7, PageID.87). Section 600.2950a of the Michigan Compiled Laws provides a procedure for victims of “stalking” to obtain PPOs. Under this statute, an individual may petition “the family division of [a Michigan] circuit court to enter a” PPO against an individual who has “stalked” the petitioner.

3

Mich. Comp. L. § 600.2950a(1). Stalking, under Michigan law, is “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.” Id. §§ 750.411h(d), 750.411i(d). Where a petitioner moves for an ex parte PPO, the Court must rule on the petition within one business day, and if the Court refuses to enter an order, the petitioner may request a hearing. Mich. Ct. R. 3.705(A)(1), (B)(1)(b).

In his PPO application, Tawfiq requests that the court prohibit Hines from “indirectly” (1) “following [him] or appearing within [his] sight,” (2) “appearing at [his] workplace or residence,” or (3) approaching or confronting [him] in a public place or on private property.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.9). Tawfiq explained that he needed a PPO because Hines “harass[ed] him by making “false” allegation which caused Tawfiq to be arrested and to lose “[twelve]-high paying jobs.” (Id. at PageID.13).

The Saginaw County Circuit Court denied Tawfiq's application, and Tawfiq later moved for a hearing. (Id. at PageID.11, 14). However, Hines removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (2018) before the scheduled hearing could occur. (ECF No. 1). Hines later moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the PPO would inhibit his official duties, the suit was

4

effectively one against the United States, which is protected by sovereign immunity. (ECF No. 7). Although the undersigned ordered Tawfiq to file a response brief, Tawfiq refused to do so, choosing instead to request a hearing before the Court. (ECF Nos. 9, 10). In his request, Tawfiq explained that he believed the AUSA assigned to this matter “submitted fraudulent information to the United States.” (ECF No. 10, PageID.94). Tawfiq did not elaborate on this statement. (Id.)

C. Summary Judgment Standard

When a movant shows that “no genuine dispute as to any material fact”...