Russell Marcilis, II v. Township of Redford
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18707
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- This civil rights action arises from two DEA/police drug raids on May 2, 2007 at the Marcilis family homes in Detroit and Clinton Township, Michigan.
- Plaintiffs allege Fourth Amendment excessive force and unreasonable search/seizure, false arrest, malicious prosecution, retaliation, and knock-and-announce violations, plus municipal claims against Redford Township for training and supervision failures.
- Warrants authorized seizure of controlled substances, proceeds, firearms, ownership/possession items, photographs, and bank records related to narcotics activity.
- During the Suffield Drive search, occupants were detained and transported; during the Manistique Street search, occupants were detained for the duration of the ninety-minute search and some items not returned.
- The district court dismissed claims against the federal agents (Doyle and Livingston) and granted summary judgment to Redford Township and the police officers, while denying the requested adjournment of the scheduling order.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding qualified immunity and other grounds warranted dismissal and summary judgment for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly dismissed Bivens claims against federal agents for failure to allege personal involvement | Marcilises argue lack of specificity against Doyle/Livingston | Doyle/Livingston contend pleading failed to identify each actor's conduct | Affirmed dismissal for lack of particularity |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a 60-day adjournment of the scheduling order | Requesting good cause due to pending dismissal motion and discovery delay | No prejudice and no good cause shown, especially after dismissal of certain claims | Not an abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force and other Fourth Amendment claims | Excessive force, unlawful detentions, and unconstitutional searches occurred | Actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances and protected by qualified immunity | Excessive force and other claims rejected on qualified immunity grounds |
| Whether the search and seizure were reasonable, including probable cause, stale information, scope, and detention | Warrant lacked probable cause, information was stale, and seizure scope/detention violated rights | Probable cause supported by ongoing narcotics activity; scope reasonable under warrant | Probable cause and scope were reasonable; no Fourth Amendment violation established |
| Whether Redford Township is liable for failure to train or supervise its officers | Township exhibited deliberate indifference via lack of training/supervision | Evidence insufficient to show prior abuse or deliberate indifference | Summary judgment for Redford Township affirmed; no deliberate indifference shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (Supreme Court, 1981) (risk of harm in narcotics raids; command of situation permissible)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (Supreme Court, 2005) (handcuffing during valid detention may be reasonable)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content enabling plausible claim)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Supreme Court, 1982) (government official immunity for discretionary acts)
- Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579 ( Sixth Cir., 1999) (detention during search permissible with justifiable safety concerns)
- Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673 ( Sixth Cir., 2008) (damages claims against government officials require particularity and fair notice)