Bryant v. Jenkins
2:14-cv-14181
E.D. Mich.Jun 22, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs Lavere Bryant (incarcerated) and Astrin Chandler sued defendants including Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Danielle Hagaman-Clark and Dearborn Police Officer Leah Bronson, alleging unlawful disclosure of Bryant’s bank records led to an unconstitutional search of Chandler’s storage unit and loss of property.
- Bryant filed the complaint and signed it; he purported to file it "on behalf of" Chandler though he is a pro se prisoner.
- Chandler alleges Bronson and Hagaman-Clark obtained and executed a warrant to search her storage unit without probable cause and that Bronson committed perjury; she seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The court screened Chandler’s in forma pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for sufficiency and permissibility of Bryant’s filing on her behalf.
- The magistrate judge recommends dismissal: procedural dismissal because Bryant cannot represent Chandler; merits dismissal of the prosecutor (absolute prosecutorial immunity) with prejudice; dismissal of officer Bronson without prejudice for failure to plead plausible facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pro se plaintiff (Bryant) may represent co-plaintiff Chandler | Bryant filed complaint "on behalf of" Chandler; claims Chandler is a co-plaintiff | Federal law prohibits a non‑attorney from representing another person in federal court | Dismissal of Chandler’s complaint without prejudice because Bryant cannot represent her |
| Whether APA Hagaman‑Clark is liable under § 1983 for advising/participating in obtaining the warrant | Chandler alleges Hagaman‑Clark counseled Bronson to procure a warrant without probable cause | Hagaman‑Clark acted in prosecutorial role and is entitled to absolute immunity | Claim against Hagaman‑Clark dismissed with prejudice (absolute prosecutorial immunity) |
| Whether Officer Bronson violated Chandler’s Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining/executing warrant | Chandler alleges Bronson procured/search executed maliciously and without probable cause; alleges perjury | Bronson (implicitly) had probable cause based on disclosed records and allegations lack factual support | Claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead plausible factual basis under Twombly/Iqbal |
| Whether Chandler’s complaint meets Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard | Chandler contends facts show unlawful search and perjury | Allegations are conclusory and lack factual enhancement linking Bronson to misconduct | Complaint fails plausibility standard; insufficient factual allegations; dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Spotts v. United States, 429 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2005) (pro se complaints construed liberally but still subject to screening)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for acts intimately associated with judicial phase of prosecution)
- Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2007) (pro se litigant may not represent others)
- Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2002) (pro se plaintiffs cannot appear on behalf of others when other interests are at stake)
- 16630 Southfield Ltd. Partnership v. Flagstar Bank, 727 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2013) (conclusory legal allegations insufficient to overcome dismissal)
- Mayer v. Mylod, 988 F.2d 635 (6th Cir. 1993) (complaint should not be dismissed unless no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)