969 F.3d 604
6th Cir.2020Background:
- Todd Courser, a Michigan state representative, had an extramarital affair with Rep. Cindy Gamrat and admitted misusing staff for political/personal matters.
- Legislative aides Keith Allard and Benjamin Graham reported misconduct upward and Graham recorded a May 19, 2015 meeting in which Courser described a planned anonymous “controlled burn” email; Allard and Graham later provided the recording to the Detroit News.
- Publication led to a House investigation, a Select Committee hearing, Courser’s resignation, and a criminal charge to which Courser pleaded no contest to willful neglect of duty.
- Courser sued Allard, Graham, and Joshua Cline (and separately sued the Michigan House and others) alleging constitutional violations, wiretapping/eavesdropping, RICO, defamation, stalking, computer crimes, conspiracy, and state torts.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed most claims as implausible or barred, ordered a motion on remaining federal/state claims, later dismissed the remaining federal claims (or found them time‑barred), declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, set aside default against Cline, and entered final judgment for defendants.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims against Allard, Graham, and Cline and upheld the district court’s exercise of discretion on supplemental jurisdiction and setting aside Cline’s default.
Issues:
| Issue | Courser’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1983 (Due process, Equal Protection, Fourth) | Surveillance and conspiracy to remove him violated liberty, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment rights | Claims are conclusory; no identified protected liberty interest; class‑of‑one theory inapplicable in public employment; recording by participant is not a Fourth Amendment seizure | Dismissed for failure to plead a constitutional violation |
| 42 U.S.C. §1985 (Conspiracy) | Defendants conspired to deprive him of rights via the House hearing | §1985 subsections inapplicable: not a federal officer, not a court proceeding, no class‑based animus | Dismissed |
| Michigan Fair & Just Treatment Clause | Select Committee hearing violated the state constitutional right to fair treatment | Relief against state actors in official capacity is effectively against the state and barred by Eleventh Amendment | Dismissed as barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| CFAA & Michigan computer statute | Defendants accessed Courser’s work computer and took data | No compensable CFAA loss alleged; Michigan statute provides no private civil cause of action | CFAA dismissed for lack of compensable loss; Michigan statute dismissed (no private right) |
| Defamation (libel/slander) | Recording was fabricated/false | Publication occurred in 2015; Courser admitted his statements on the tape; statute of limitations | Dismissed as time‑barred and not plausibly false |
| Civil stalking (Mich. law) | Defendants caused extortion/harassing texts and engaged in stalking | No allegation that defendants personally made unconsented contacts; texts attributed to third parties; conspiracy cannot substitute for underlying tort | Dismissed for failure to allege unconsented contact or actionable underlying tort |
| RICO and RICO conspiracy | Defendants’ scheme to remove him constituted a pattern of racketeering | Alleged scheme was single‑purpose, single victim, finite in time; no continuity or threat of ongoing criminal activity | Dismissed for lack of pattern/continuity; conspiracy claim fails with substantive RICO dismissal |
| Federal Wiretapping Act & Mich. eavesdropping | Recording violated federal and state eavesdropping laws | Claim is time‑barred; state claim falls with federal claims | Federal wiretapping claim dismissed as time‑barred; district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claim |
| State torts (intrusion, IIED) | Invasion of privacy and IIED from recording and publicity | After dismissal of federal claims, district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction | District court declined supplemental jurisdiction; state claims not adjudicated on merits |
| Default against Cline | Default entry for failure to defend should stand | Court set aside entry of default for good cause, favoring merits and noting statute‑of‑limitations and other factors | District court did not abuse discretion in setting aside default; related claims against Cline dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes pleading standard for plausibility)
- Robbins v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, 854 F.3d 315 (6th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review)
- United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853 (6th Cir.) (perfunctory or undeveloped arguments are forfeited)
- McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (6th Cir.) (issues not developed are forfeited)
- Guertin v. Michigan, 912 F.3d 907 (6th Cir.) (substantive due process requires conscience‑shocking conduct)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (class‑of‑one theory inapplicable in public employment)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (RICO elements and civil remedy)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (continuity requirement for RICO pattern)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (defines class‑of‑one equal protection theory)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official‑capacity suits are suits against the state; Eleventh Amendment implications)
- Burrell v. Henderson, 434 F.3d 826 (6th Cir.) (factors for setting aside default)
- Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 343 N.W.2d 164 (Mich.) (concert of action doctrine)