Yarbrough v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 29 September 2008
• Docket Number: No. 06-14021.,06-14021.
• Citation: 579 F.Supp.2d 856
• Parties: Hendrick YARBROUGH, Plaintiff, v. Cathy M. GARRETT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

579 F.Supp.2d 856

Hendrick YARBROUGH, Plaintiff, v. Cathy M. GARRETT, Defendant.

No. 06-14021.

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

September 29, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hendrick Yarbrough, Coldwater, MI, pro se.

Aaron C. Thomas, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge.

Before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections, (Doc. 41), to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R & R), (Doc. 40), and Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objections, (Doc. 42). In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 31), and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 26). Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of whether the Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and conclusion that the Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.¹ For the reasons discussed below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 12, 2006, Plaintiff Hendrick Yarbrough, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint against Defendant Cathy, Garrett, Wayne County Clerk, alleging that Defendant denied his right of access to the courts under the First Amendment and his right to a copy of his transcripts, which he needs to appeal his criminal conviction, under the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant filed a January 21, 2008, motion for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff (1) had received a copy of his criminal proceeding; (2) failed to show good cause for seeking free copies of the transcripts; and (3) has not been eligible to appeal his conviction since 1977. On February 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a combined motion for summary judgment and response to Defense's motion for summary judgment contesting the assertions in Defendant's motion and arguing that the Court should grant summary judgment in his favor.

Subsequently, on April 22, 2008, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant's response argued that, among other things, she is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. On May 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant's response to his motion for summary judgment contending that, among other things, Defendant was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that this Court find that Defendant was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Therefore, the report recommended denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Id. The requirement of de novo review "is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life tenure." United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir.1985). Accordingly, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to "insure[ ] that the district judge would be the final arbiter" of a matter referred to a magistrate. Flournoy v. Marshall, 842 F.2d 875, 878 (6th Cir.1987).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge should not have considered whether Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because Defendant did not raise this affirmative defense in its first responsive pleadings or in its motion for summary judgment. In addition, Plaintiff objects that Defendant is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because she was acting in a ministerial capacity.

The magistrate judge did not err by considering whether Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity despite Defendant's failure to discuss her entitlement to such immunity in her motion for summary judgment. A district court may grant summary judgment on grounds not urged by the moving party so long as the nonmoving party has adequate notice and is not prejudiced. See Routman v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 873 F.2d 970, 971 (6th Cir.1989). In this case, Plaintiff had notice that the Magistrate Judge would consider whether Defendant was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. In particular, Defendant's answer asserted that Plaintiff's claims were barred by immunity, and Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment asserted that Defendant was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. In addition, Plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to this issue because Plaintiff argued that Defendant was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity in his reply to Defendant's response to his motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the court's consideration of whether Defendant was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because Plaintiff had notice and an opportunity to respond to the issue. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge properly considered whether Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See id.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge's finding that Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity was not erroneous. "It is well established that judges and other court officers enjoy absolute immunity from suit on claims arising out of the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It is equally clear that judges and other court officers are not absolutely immune from suits based on performance of non-judicial functions." Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 417 (6th Cir.1988). "Quasi-judicial immunity extends to those persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process that these persons are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune." Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir.1994). Accordingly, "[w]hether an act is judicial in character does not depend on whether it is discretionary. The appropriate inquiry is whether the function in question is a truly judicial act or an act that simply happens to have been done by judges." Id. (quotations and alterations omitted). This Court finds that mailing transcripts to indigent prisoners so that they can appeal their convictions is "a truly judicial act." Id. Thus, Defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. See Foster, 864 F.2d at 417.

The Court notes that this finding is supported by the Sixth Circuit's determination that a prisoner's complaint seeking monetary damages from two court clerks whom the prisoner alleged had failed to provide him with requested copies of previous filings and transcripts was properly dismissed on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity. Lyle v. Jackson, 49 Fed.Appx. 492, 494 (6th Cir.2002). In addition, a decision in another case against this Defendant recently found that this Defendant's act of allegedly failing to provide requested transcripts was covered by quasi-judicial immunity. See Walthall v. Garrett, No. 07-13117, 2008 WL 440648 (E.D.Mich.2008).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R. As such, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Ent.26) and PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. Ent.31)

PAUL J. KOMIVES, United States Magistrate Judge.

Table of Contents

                I. RECOMMENDATION.....................................................861
                II. REPORT............................................................861
                A. State Court Proceedings.........................................................861
                

                B. Yarbrough's Requests for State Court Proceeding Transcripts.....................862
                C. The Instant Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint.....................................864
                D. Plaintiffs November 2, 2006, Motion for Summary Judgment........................864
                E. Pending Motions.................................................................865
                F. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.................................................................866
                G. Analysis........................................................................868
                1. Plaintiffs Complaint Is Based Upon The First and Fourteenth
                          Amendments....................................................................868
                2. Plaintiffs Claims Should Be Analyzed under the First Amendment
                          Right to Petition Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Due
                          Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal
                          Protection Clause .............................................................869
                3. However, Garrett is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity..........................871
                III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS ..........................874
                

I. RECOMMENDATION:

The Court should conclude that defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity and on that basis grant defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. Ent.26) and deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. Ent.31).

II. REPORT:

Plaintiffs complaint alleges that his request for preliminary examination and trial transcripts from his state court cases were wrongfully denied. For this reason, a brief review of the state court proceedings is appropriate.

A. State Court Proceedings

1. Recorders Court of Detroit (File No. 75-001350)

Hendrick Yarbrough's preliminary examination took place on March 3, 1975. A trial began on or about June 16, 1975, and concluded on June 18, 1975 when Yarbrough was found guilty. Doc. Ent. 28 at 2. On July 21, 1975, Yarbrough was sentenced to life for armed robbery (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529) and first-degree murder (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316). Doc. Ent. 28 at 2; Offender Search (www. michigan.gov/corrections). During these proceedings, Yarbrough was represented by Fred K. Persons. Doc. Ent. 28 ...