Watkins v. Healy
| Decision Date | 28 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1074,20-1074 |
| Parties | Ledura WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert H. HEALY, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Davidde A. Stella, WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Wolfgang Mueller, MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Davidde A. Stella, WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Wolfgang Mueller, MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellee.
Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
In 1976, 19-year-old Ledura Watkins was convicted of the murder of Yvette Ingram and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The State of Michigan's case against Watkins hinged on a begrudged schoolfellow and a single hair: Watkins's 20-year-old high school classmate Travis Herndon testified that he and Watkins robbed and murdered Ingram together, and Detroit Police Department Evidence Technician Ronald Badaczewski testified that a hair found on Ingram's clothing matched a hair sample of Watkins. After Watkins's conviction, Herndon repeatedly recanted. In sworn affidavits, letters, and testimony, Herndon continuously attested that Wayne County Prosecutor Robert H. Healy and Detective Neil Schwartz threatened to charge him with Ingram's murder and another unrelated murder if Herndon did not tape a statement that implicated Watkins and testify to that effect at Watkins's trial. Yet Watkins's efforts to overturn his conviction were of no avail for four decades. In January 2017, Watkins presented to the state trial court new evidence that Badaczewski's hair analysis methods were seriously flawed. Based on this new evidence, the state trial court dismissed the case against Watkins without prejudice.
In December 2017, Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Healy, the estate of Schwartz, Badaczewski, and the City of Detroit. Healy responded with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The district court denied Healy's motion, and this appeal ensued. Although we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider most of Healy's arguments, we hold that Healy is not entitled to absolute immunity for his alleged actions and that Healy has forfeited the issue of qualified immunity at this stage of the suit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM .
On September 6, 1975, schoolteacher and drug dealer Yvette Ingram was robbed and shot dead in her Detroit home. R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 4) (Page ID #7490).1 The Detroit Police Department ("DPD") had no leads on Ingram's murder until October 14 of that year, when 20-year-old Travis Herndon was arrested for an unrelated armed robbery. Id. at 5 (Page ID #7491). While in custody, Herndon told a police officer that 19-year-old Ledura Watkins robbed and killed Ingram on the orders of Gary Vazana, a corrupt police officer and drug dealer. Id.2 Days later, Robert H. Healy—an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Wayne County—and Neil Schwartz—a DPD Sergeant—interrogated Herndon about the Ingram murder. Id. at 2–3, 5 (Page ID #7488–89, 7491). Herndon told a different story to Healy and Schwartz; Herndon now asserted that both Watkins and Herndon, acting on Vazana's orders, drove Vazana's car to Ingram's home and "used Vazana's pistol to kill Ingram." Id. at 6 (Page ID #7492).3 At some point, Healy left the interrogation room before returning and passing a note to Schwartz. Schwartz read the note and purportedly handed it to Herndon. Id. "The note indicated that Vazana had been found shot to death in his residence." Id. Healy left the room again. Id. at 7 (Page ID #7493).4
Schwartz apparently "attempted to have Herndon make a tape-recorded statement implicating [ ] Watkins." Id. But Herndon allegedly changed his tune for a third time:
Herndon specifically told S[chwartz] that his earlier statement about Ledura Watkins’[s] involvement was not true. Herndon told S[chwartz] that Vazana drove Herndon to Yvette Ingram's house and robbed and killed her, with Vazana shooting Ingram twice in the head while she was on her bed. Herndon specifically told S[chwartz] that Watkins was not involved in the Yvette Ingram murder.
Id. Schwartz then reportedly joined Healy outside the interrogation room, where "H[ealy] and S[chwartz] conspired and agreed to frame [Watkins] by fabricating evidence that Herndon and Watkins killed Yvette Ingram." Id.5 Healy and Schwartz allegedly returned to the interrogation room, where the following apparently transpired:
H[ealy] told Herndon that he and S[chwartz] wanted Ledura Watkins for the Ingram murder because they believed he was involved and that he likely murdered Gary Vazana. [ ] Herndon again told H[ealy] and S[chwartz] that Watkins had nothing to do with the murder, and that Herndon and Vazana killed Ingram. H[ealy] and S[chwartz] threatened Herndon that they would charge Herndon with the Ingram murder unless he implicated Watkins in the murder. H[ealy] stated he would grant Herndon immunity if he testified against Watkins. [ ] H[ealy] and S[chwartz] also threatened to charge Herndon with the recent murder of Jr. Cunningham, as Herndon was the last individual who was seen with Cunningham before his murder.
Id. at 7–8 (Page ID #7493–94). Herndon—who purportedly "bore a grudge against Watkins and believed that Watkins had recently fired shots at Herndon while Herndon was out of jail on bond"—acceded. Id. at 8 (Page ID #7494). Schwartz tape-recorded Herndon, who "implicated Watkins in Yvette Ingram's murder[,]" id. , and narrated how he and Watkins robbed and killed Ingram on Vazana's orders, R. 34-8 (Taped Statement at 2–3) (Page ID #7973–74).
On October 22, 1975, Schwartz filed a warrant request for Watkins with the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office. R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 10) (Page ID #7496); R. 34-9 (Warrant Req. at 2) (Page ID #7982). Herndon's tape-recorded statement was the "sole basis for probable cause for Watkins’[s] arrest and continued detention, as there was no other evidence linking Watkins to the crime." R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 9) (Page ID #7495).6 Watkins was arrested that same day. Id. at 11 (Page ID #7497).
Watkins's trial commenced on March 8, 1976. Consistent with his tape-recorded statement, Herndon testified that both he and Watkins killed Ingram. Id. at 13–15 (Page ID #7499–501); R. 34-16 (Trial Tr. Part 1 at 379–584) (Page ID #8161–8365). DPD evidence technician Ronald Badaczewski testified that a single hair on Ingram's pants "could" have a "common origin" with a sample supposedly taken from Watkins.7 R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 15–16) (Page ID #7501–02); R. 34-16 (Trial Tr. Part 2 at 669–814) (Page ID #8420–544). Herndon supplied the sole eyewitness testimony that implicated Watkins in Ingram's murder, and the lone hair was the only physical evidence linking Watkins to the scene of the crime. R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 15) (Page ID #7501).8 Watkins was convicted of first-degree murder on March 16, 1976 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Id. at 18–19 (Page ID #7504–05); R. 34-17 (Jury Verdict at 3) (Page ID #8645); R. 34-18 (Sent'g Tr. at 3) (Page ID #8653).
Herndon repeatedly recanted his testimony in affidavits, letters, and at evidentiary hearings.9 But Watkins's many appeals and post-conviction proceedings10 yielded no relief until this millennium. On January 19, 2017, Watkins filed a successive motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court, which included an affidavit from a forensic hair-analysis expert that challenged Badaczewski's testimony and hair analysis.11 R. 34-48 (2017 Mot. at 1–3) (Page ID #9181–83); R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 24) (Page ID #7510). The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office moved to dismiss Watkins's case without prejudice.12 R. 34-49 (Stip. Order at 1–3) (Page ID #9236–38); R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 25) (Page ID #7511). On June 15, 2017, the state court vacated Watkins's conviction and sentence and dismissed the case without prejudice. R. 34-49 (Stip. Order at 3) (Page ID #9238). Watkins had been incarcerated for over forty-one years for Ingram's murder. R. 30 (Am. Compl. at 26) (Page ID #7512).13
On December 6, 2017, Watkins filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 198814 in federal court against Healy, Schwartz's estate,15 Badaczewski, and the City of Detroit.16 R. 1 (Compl. at 1–2) (Page ID #1–2). In his amended complaint, Watkins brings the following claims against Healy:
His complaint also included a variety of state and federal claims against the other defendants.
In January 2019, Healy moved to dismiss Watkins's amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), R. 34 (Mot. Dismiss at 1) (Page ID #7734), which the district court denied, Watkins v. Healy , No. 17-CV-13940, 2019 WL 3777631, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2019). The district court also denied Healy's motion for reconsideration.
Watkins v. Healy , 429 F. Supp. 3d 420, 442 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Healy timely filed a notice of appeal, bringing this case before this court.
Healy raises six issues on appeal: (1) whether the applicable three-year statute of limitations bars Watkins's constitutional claims; (2) whether absolute immunity insulates Healy from Watkins's constitutional and common law claims; (3) whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zakora v. Chrisman
...for the first time on appeal. First, the MDOC Defendants have forfeited the argument as an appellate issue. See Watkins v. Healy , 986 F.3d 648, 667 (6th Cir. 2021). The MDOC Defendants did not make any argument at all as to the "clearly established" prong in their appellate brief, insistin......
-
DeCrane v. Eckart
...denying a statute-of-limitations defense. See United States v. Davis , 873 F.2d 900, 908–09 (6th Cir. 1989) ; see also Watkins v. Healy , 986 F.3d 648, 659 (6th Cir. 2021). Does it change things, though, that this statute-of-limitations issue arose from the same order that denied Eckart qua......
-
United States v. Hofstetter
...fails to raise an argument as to these convictions in her brief before this Court, she has forfeited the issue. See Watkins v. Healy , 986 F.3d 648, 667 (6th Cir. 2021). D. Hofstetter's Evidentiary Challenges Hofstetter challenges three of the district court's evidentiary rulings at trial, ......
-
Estate of Zakora v. Chrisman
...allegations, this issue is best left to the district court to address in the first instance at the summary-judgment stage. See Watkins, 986 F.3d at 668 ("In sum, has forfeited the issue of qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. Should Healy raise qualified immunity in a motion......