THE TAXPAYERS OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS DEMAND TO KNOW WHY THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT HAS FAILED TO INVOKE OBVIOUS AND AVAILABLE DEFENSES TO HORTON'S LAWSUIT. WHY ARE THE TAXPAYERS BEING PUT THROUGH THIS?

CLAIMS AGAINST THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT

Why has the 48th District Court failed to assert the most obvious defense available? Because the 48th District Court is an arm of the state, it is immune under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the 48th District Court cannot be considered a "person" for purposes of liability under § 1983. See Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 812 (6th Cir. 2003) ("Of course, insofar as Holmes County Court is an arm of the State of Ohio entitled to sovereign immunity, it is not a 'person' for purposes of § 1983.") (citing Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989)); Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 418 (6th Cir. 1988) (stating that courts that have considered the issue "have held unanimously that a court is not a 'person' within the meaning of that term as used in § 1983."); see also Bridges v. Senger, 730 F. Supp. 1401, 1408 (W.D. Mich. 1990) (noting that "a court is defined not as a person or quasi-artificial person. . . but as a 'place in which justice is judicially administered. . . .") (citations omitted).

Michelle Horton's federal claims against the 48th District Court should have been dismissed in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to dismiss the lawsuit at the inception of the case. Why the 48th District Court's attorneys have prolonged this case into the Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 stage is completely incomprehensible.

CLAIMS AGAINST JAMES HARKINS (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY)

The federal claims brought against James Harkins, in his official capacity, could have also been easily dismissed at the inception of this lawsuit. The failure of the 48th District Court's lawyers to do so is unbelievable.

In general, "state governments and entities that can be considered arms of the state are immune from suits for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment." Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 814 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Brotherton v. Cleveland, 173 F.3d 552, 560 (6th Cir. 1999)). Specifically, the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits seeking money damages against states and against state employees sued in their official capacities. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S. Ct. 2304 (1989).

Just as the 48th District Court enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity, so does James Harkins, in his official capacity. The hardworking taxpayers of this community want to know why these issues have not been raised.

CLAIMS AGAINST JAMES HARKINS (IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY)

This is, perhaps, the most troubling aspect of the litigation because the 48th District Court had an opportunity to plead federal qualified immunity in an attempt to get the case dismissed in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. However, the 48th District Court blew this one too.

Even worse, the 48th District Court's motion for summary judgment does not outline a qualified immunity defense, which should have been the Court's first argument.

Horton is claiming a violation of due process. There are two types of procedural due process claims. One involves cases where state actors violate due process through random and unauthorized acts. The other is where there is a deprivation through established state procedures. See, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393, 104 S. Ct. 3194 (1984), as opposed to Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981). Horton's complaint is unclear as to what type of due process claim she has brought, an issue that should have been ceased upon by the 48th District Court's lawyers. The doctrine of qualified immunity may have been an easy avenue for the 48th District Court to get rid of this case, yet it chose not to assert the defense. Shame on the 48th District Court!

WHAT THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT DID RAISE AS A DEFENSE

What is even more incredible is that the 48th District Court only raised state-law defenses to the §1983 claims in the lawsuit.  For example, the 48th District Court claims that Horton's state employment was at-will.  This argument may have some merit to it because the existence of a federal property interest depends largely on state law.  Nevertheless, state-law defenses, standing alone, can never be a complete defense to federal §1983 claims.  The 48th District Court has some explaining to do, namely, why it did not assert a federal qualified immunity defense to Horton's federal claims.  The taxpayers deserve better than this.  

THE TAXPAYERS DEMAND ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS!