UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CITIZENS UNITED AGAINST

CORRUPT GOVERNMENT,

and ROBERT DAVIS,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 14-CV-12795

v. HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

RUTH JOHNSON, 

Defendant.

 /

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 22)

Convicted felon Robert Davis and his non-profit corporation, named ironically

enough, Citizens United Against Corrupt Government (“Citizens United”), brought this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 suit to challenge the constitutionality of portions of Michigan Campaign

Finance Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 169.254(1) and (2), which prohibit corporations from

making direct money contributions to candidates. After this lawsuit was filed, Davis pled

guilty to embezzlement from the Highland Park Schools while employed there as an elected

school board member. In the matter before the court, plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that

Michigan’s ban on direct corporate contributions violates their First Amendment rights and

seek injunctive relief allowing for Citizens United to make direct contributions to Davis’ now

defunct campaign for school board member, to two state representative candidates, and

to make certain “expenditures” on behalf of Wayne County Commissioner and state

representative candidates. Although the campaigns are now over, plaintiffs claim they seek

to contribute to candidates’ campaign debts. Defendant Secretary of State Ruth Johnson

-1-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 664
argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to equitable relief under the doctrine of unclean hands. 

Defendant also moves to dismiss on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the

doctrine of laches, and by the prudential and jurisdictional doctrines of standing and

ripeness. Oral argument was heard on December 18, 2014. For the reasons set forth

below, defendant’s motion to dismiss claims based on the doctrine of unclean hands shall

be granted, and the court shall not address the other grounds for dismissal.

I. Background

Citizens United is a Michigan nonprofit corporation founded by Davis in 2012 for the

stated purpose of “promoting and ensuring corrupt-free and law-abiding civic government

through social actions and court actions designed to eliminate unlawful and illegal actions

by all governmental officials, representatives and entities in all levels of government.” (Doc.

25 at 6). Davis is the sole founder of Citizens United and acts as its director. According

to the Articles of Incorporation of Citizens United:

The corporation is to be financed . . . with the personal funds of Robert Davis,

its incorporator, and with voluntary donations and fundraisers.

(Doc. 22, Ex. 2). As the Secretary of State, defendant Johnson is the filing official

responsible for enforcing the Michigan Campaign Finance Act as it pertains to candidates

that are required to file reports with her office. 

On July 21, 2014, Citizens United filed its two-count first amended complaint against

defendants Johnson and Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett. Count I seeks declaratory

and injunctive relief against defendant Latanya Garrett to allow Citizens United to contribute

to Davis’ bid for reelection to the Highland Park School Board. Count II seeks declaratory

and injunctive relief against defendant Johnson to allow Citizens United to contribute to the

-2-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 665
campaigns of state representative candidates Latanya Garrett and Eze Ejelonu. Count III

seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants Cathy Garrett and Johnson to

allow Citizen United to make an “expenditure” to pay individuals to canvass voters and to

distribute campaign literature in the City of Highland Park on behalf of Wayne County

Commissioner candidate Martha G. Scott and representative candidate Latanya Garrett. 

On September 2, 2014, Davis pled guilty to embezzling over $90,000 from the

Highland Park Schools and became ineligible to run for school board member. On

September 15, 2014, defendant Cathy Garrett filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that

Davis was ineligible to run for school board based on his felony conviction and thus the

doctrine of unclean hands barred equitable relief. In addition, defendant Cathy Garrett

argued that she was entitled to immunity and that plaintiff lacked standing. On October 8,

2014, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of defendant Cathy Garrett. Accordingly, only

defendant Johnson remains as to Counts II and III. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel

represented that the stipulated order also dismissed Davis from this lawsuit. This was not

clear to defendant or this court. Based on counsel’s representation at oral argument, Davis

shall be deemed dismissed from this lawsuit. 

II. Analysis

Defendant moves to dismiss based on the doctrine of unclean hands because Davis

has been convicted of embezzlement from the Highland Park Schools while he was serving

as an elected school board member and brought this suit, in part, to contribute to his own

campaign for school board member. Moreover, defendant argues that Citizens United is

the alter-ego of Davis as his non-profit corporation is funded by his personal contributions,

-3-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 666
and has not filed annual reports for the past two-years and thus is subject to automatic

dissolution. 

The doctrine of unclean hands bars a litigant who has committed an unconscionable

act from seeking relief in equity related to that act. Keystone Driller Co. v. General

Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245 (1933). The Sixth Circuit has explained that a court may

bar equitable relief “where the party applying for such relief is guilty of conduct involving

fraud, deceit, unconscionability, or bad faith related to the matter at issue to the detriment

of the other party.” Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373,

1383 (6th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); NACCO Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v. Toyota

Mat. Handling USA, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 597, 609 (W.D. Tenn. 2004), aff’d, 246 F. App’x

929 (6th Cir. 2007). The Sixth Circuit has held that there must be a close nexus between

the alleged misconduct and the matter in issue for the concept of unclean hands to be

employed. Society of Lloyd’s v. Shields, 118 F. App’x 12, 15 (6th Cir. 2004). The doctrine

does not operate as a matter of defense, but rather, serves to preserve the court from the

threat of becoming “the abettor of iniquity.” Northeast Women’s Ctr., Inc. v. McMonagle,

868 F.2d 1342, 1355 (3d Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Given the importance of the

doctrine to upholding the integrity of the courts, courts may even raise the matter sua

sponte. Karpenko v. Leendertz, 619 F.3d 259, 265 (3d Cir. 2010). Citizens United’s suit

here for equitable relief is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

There can be no dispute that Davis’ misconduct in embezzling over $90,000 from

the Highland Park Schools constitutes something worse than fraud and bad faith, but

amounts to unconscionable conduct. Plaintiffs concede that they may not proceed with

their claim to contribute to Davis’ own campaign for school board, and so they agreed to

-4-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 667
dismiss Count I. Citizens United’s claims against Johnson should fare no better. Like

Count I, Counts II and III seek the same declaratory judgment that Michigan’s ban on direct

corporate contributions is unconstitutional, and seek an injunction to allow Citizens United

to make direct contributions to the campaigns of former state representative candidates

Latanya Garrett and Ejelonu and Wayne County Commissioner candidate Scott. Although

the election is now over, Latanya Garrett and Scott having won and Ejelonu having lost in

the primary, Citizens United claims these former candidates “still require financial resources

for their respective campaign debts.” (Doc. 25 at 8). The fact that Citizens United seeks

to make contributions to candidates other than Davis does not save its claims from

dismissal under the doctrine of unclean hands. Davis’ conduct is attributable to Citizens

United based on his role as director and founder. According to the first amended

complaint, Davis is the one who contacted Johnson’s office about contributing to certain

candidates on behalf of his non-profit. (Doc. 8, ¶ 37). Moreover, according to the first

amended complaint, it is Citizens United acting through its director, Davis, that seeks to

make the prohibited contributions and expenditures. (Doc. 8, ¶¶ 66, 87). 

In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, Davis submitted his own affidavit

stating that he is the individual who sought leave from the Secretary of State’s office to

make corporate campaign contributions to state representative candidates and to make

certain “expenditures” barred by Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§

169.254(1) and (2). (Doc. 25, Ex. A at ¶¶ 11, 14). Because it is Davis’ conduct as director

of Citizens United which gives rise to his claim for injunctive relief, his gross misconduct as

school board member is rightfully attributed to his non-profit. Allowing such a claim to

proceed in light of Davis’ public corruption and felony conviction would impose an

-5-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 668
impermissible iniquity on the court. To preserve the integrity of the court, Davis must be

barred from pursuing claims on behalf of his non-profit corporation which he ironically

claims was formed to “prom[ote] and ensur[e] corrupt-free and law-abiding civic

government through social actions and court actions designed to eliminate unlawful and

illegal actions by all government officials.” A clearer example of “unclean hands” cannot

be imagined. In its response brief, Citizens United does not address the doctrine of

unclean hands, does not object to defendant’s claim that Davis is the alter-ego of Citizens

United, and does not set forth any reason why his misconduct should not be attributed to

his non-profit corporation.1

 For the reasons set forth above, the doctrine of unclean hands

bars Citizens United’s claim for injunctive relief.

 The next issue is whether Citizens United’s request for declaratory relief is also

equitable in nature such that the doctrine of unclean hands would also apply as a bar from

suit. The Supreme Court has held that a declaratory judgment action is neither legal nor

equitable in nature per se as such relief was not available under the common law but is a

creature of statute. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 284

(1988). A suit for declaratory relief may either be a suit for damages or for equitable relief

and depends on the nature of the remedy sought. The issue of how to classify declaratory

judgment actions typically arises in the situation where the parties’ dispute whether either

party is entitled to a jury trial. See, e.g., Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land

& Water Co., 299 F.3d 643, 647-50 (7th Cir. 2002). The Sixth Circuit has treated a suit for

1

On November 20, 2014, Davis filed for bankruptcy. Defendant argues that since

Davis commingled his own funds with that of his non-profit corporation Citizens United,

creditors could reach the assets of Citizens United, thus preventing Citizens United from

contributing to any political candidates even if it were to prevail on the merits.

-6-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 669
declaratory relief as equitable in nature in E.W. Bliss Co. v. Cold Metal Process Co., 102

F.2d 105, 109 (6th Cir. 1939), where the court applied the doctrine of laches in a

declaratory judgment action. Where the remedy sought is damages, the claim is for legal

relief. On the other hand, where the declaratory judgment “invokes the court’s coercive

powers in a manner analogous to a traditional remedy, the declaratory judgment should be

treated as equitable in nature.” Township of Haddon v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 929 F.

Supp. 774, 778 (D.N.J. 1996). In this case, Citizens United has not made a jury demand,

does not seek money damages, and seeks to use a judicial declaration that portions of

Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 169.254 (1) and (2), are

unconstitutional as a means for the non-profit corporation to fund candidates directly. 

Under these circumstances, the relief sought is equitable in nature, and the doctrine of

unclean hands also applies to bar Citizens United’s request for declaratory relief. This case

is similar to Blackenship v. Blackwell, 341 F. Supp. 2d 911, 923 (S.D. Ohio 2004), where

the district court held that the doctrine of unclean hands barred it from considering whether

a residency requirement for petition circulators was unconstitutional because the circulators

had engaged in fraud. As in Blackenship, Citizens United’s claim for declaratory relief and

injunctive relief shall be denied on the basis of the doctrine of unclean hands.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 22) is

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 670
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

January 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-8-

2:14-cv-12795-GCS-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 01/06/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 671