UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT DAVIS, Hon.

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15- cvv

CARLA ROBERT, in her individual and official

capacity as the FOIA Coordinator for the Michigan

Department of Treasury, and

SUE HALL, in her official capacity as a duly appointed

member of the Wayne County Airport Authority,

 Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________/

Andrew A. Paterson (P18690)

Attorney for Plaintiff

46350 Grand River Ave., Ste. C

Novi, MI 48374

(248) 568-9712

_____________________________________________________________/

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

NOW COMES, PLAINTIFF ROBERT DAVIS ("Plaintiff Davis" or 

"Plaintiff"), by and through his attorney, ANDREW A. PATERSON, for his 

Verified Complaint For Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief 

("Complaint"), states and alleges the following:

I. NATURE OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 1 of 31 Pg ID 1
Page 2 of 31

 1. Plaintiff Davis' claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. 

§§1331, 1337, 1343, 1367; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 

et. seq.

 2. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count I of the Complaint that a declaratory 

judgment should be issued declaring that Defendant Carla Robert ("Defendant 

Robert"), in her official capacity as the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") 

Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Treasury, violated Plaintiff Davis' 

Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances as guaranteed under 

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by enforcing the Michigan's 

FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons from appealing any denial decision 

to the circuit court or to the head of the respective public body.

 3. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count II of the Complaint that a declaratory 

judgment should be issued declaring that Defendant Robert, in her official capacity 

as the FOIA Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Treasury, violated 

Plaintiff Davis' Procedural Due Process Rights as guaranteed under the Fourteenth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution by enforcing the FOIA's prohibition 

against incarcerated persons from invoking the privileges of Michigan's FOIA 

statute, which deprived Plaintiff Davis of his statutory right to receive copies of 

public documents and Plaintiff Davis' statutory right to file an appeal in the circuit 

court without notice and/or a hearing.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 2 of 31 Pg ID 2
Page 3 of 31

 4. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count III of the Complaint that a declaratory 

judgment should be issued declaring that the FOIA's prohibition against 

incarcerated persons from invoking the privileges of the FOIA statute violate 

Plaintiff Davis' Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances and 

Mich. Const. 1963, art. 9, § 23.

 5. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count IV of the Complaint that a declaratory 

judgment should be issued declaring that Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.234(3) of the 

FOIA requires the Defendant Robert, in her official capacity as the FOIA 

Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Treasury, to waive any costs and fees 

associated with the production of the public documents requested by Plaintiff 

Davis in his February 9, 2015 FOIA Request.

 6. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count V of the Complaint that a declaratory 

judgment should be issued declaring that Defendant Robert, in her individual 

capacity, retaliated against Plaintiff Davis for exercising his First Amendment 

Rights by intentionally and purposely delaying issuing a response to Plaintiff 

Davis' February 9, 2015 FOIA Request until it was time for Plaintiff Davis to self 

report to a federal minimum security camp.

 7. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count VI of the Complaint that injunctive relief 

should be granted permanently enjoining Defendant Robert from enforcing the 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 3 of 31 Pg ID 3
Page 4 of 31

FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons from invoking the privileges of the 

FOIA statute.

 8. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count VII of the Complaint that a declaratory 

judgment should be issued declaring that Defendant Sue Hall ("Defendant Hall"), 

in her official capacity as a duly appointed member of the Wayne County Airport 

Authority, retaliated against Plaintiff Davis for exercising his First Amendment

Rights by harassing Plaintiff Davis, and purposefully interfering with and stalling 

contract negotiations for AFSCME Local 953.

 9. Plaintiff Davis alleges in Count VIII of the Complaint that Plaintiff Davis 

shall be awarded his attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

 10. Plaintiff Davis' action is timely because it has been commenced within the 

three-year statute of limitation period to commence § 1983 actions. The Sixth 

Circuit has held that "the appropriate statute of limitations to be borrowed for §

1983 actions arising in Michigan is the state's three-year limitations period for 

personal injury claims." Wolfe v Perry, 412 F.3d 707, 714 (6th Cir. 2005).

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 11. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff Davis' claims pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1337, 1343, 1367.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 4 of 31 Pg ID 4
Page 5 of 31

 12. This Court also has jurisdiction to render and issue a declaratory judgment, 

as requested by Plaintiff Davis herein, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 2201, et. seq.

 13. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Plaintiff Davis is a resident 

of this district, all Defendants reside or have their principal offices located in this 

district, and the actions giving rise to this complaint all occurred within this 

district.

III. PARTIES

 14. Plaintiff Davis is a registered and qualified elector of the City of Highland 

Park, State of Michigan. Plaintiff Davis is also a former elected member of the 

Highland Park Board of Education and was a union and community activist prior 

to his incarceration.

 15. Defendant Carla Robert ("Defendant Robert"), pursuant to Mich. Comp.

Laws § 15.236 of Michigan's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") is the duly 

appointed FOIA Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Treasury. 

 16. Defendant Sue Hall ("Defendant Hall"), pursuant to state law, is a duly 

appointed member of the Wayne County Airport Authority.

IV. COMMON FACTS

 17. On April 5, 2012, Plaintiff Davis was indicted by the United States 

Government on 16 counts alleging misconduct while Plaintiff Davis was an elected 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 5 of 31 Pg ID 5
Page 6 of 31

member of the Highland Schools Board of Education, being Criminal Case No. 12-

20224 ("Plaintiff Davis' Criminal Matter"). (See Plaintiff's affidavits attached 

hereto as Exhibits A and B).

 18. On June 28, 2012, a First Superseding Indictment was issued against 

Plaintiff Davis adding four new counts alleging his filing of false income tax 

returns. (See Plaintiff's affidavits attached hereto as Exhibits A and B).

 19. After Plaintiff Davis' indictment became public, Plaintiff Davis remained 

and continued in his employment with Michigan AFSCME Council 25 as a Union 

Staff Representative, until his termination on September 18, 2014. (See Plaintiff's 

affidavits attached hereto as Exhibits A and B).

 20. In fact, after Plaintiff Davis' indictment was widely publicized, in June 

2012, Al Garrett, President of Michigan AFSCME Council 25, still selected 

Plaintiff Davis to represent AFSCME at Harvard University's prestigious Senior 

Executives in State and Local Government Program, held at Harvard University's 

Kennedy School of Government. (See Plaintiff's affidavits attached hereto as 

Exhibits A and B).

 21. On September 2, 2014, Plaintiff Davis pled guilty before Senior United 

States District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow ("Judge Tarnow") to one count of 

Unlawful Conversion of Program Funds and one count of Filing a False Income 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 6 of 31 Pg ID 6
Page 7 of 31

Tax Return for the tax year 2007. (See Plaintiff's affidavits attached hereto as 

Exhibits A and B).

 22. On December 18, 2014, Judge Tarnow sentenced Plaintiff Davis to serve 

18 months at a federal minimum security camp. Counsel for Defendant Hall, the 

Wayne County Airport Authority, and other state officials were present at Plaintiff 

Davis' sentencing. (See Plaintiff's affidavits attached hereto as Exhibits A and B).

 23. On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff Davis self-reported to the federal minimum 

security camp in Montgomery, Alabama located on the Maxwell Air Force Base 

("FPC Montgomery") to begin serving his 18-month sentence as was imposed by 

Judge Tarnow in Plaintiff Davis' Criminal Matter. (See Plaintiff's affidavits 

attached hereto as Exhibits A and B).

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Defendant Robert, In Her Official Capacity as the FOIA Coordinator for the 

Michigan Department of Treasury, Violated Plaintiff's First Amendment Right to 

Petition the Government For Redress of Grievances By Enforcing Michigan 

FOIA's Prohibition Against Incarcerated Persons To Plaintiff's February 9, 2015 

FOIA Request.

 24. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.

 25. Pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.235 of Michigan's FOIA, on February 

9, 2015, Plaintiff Davis sent, via email, a request to Defendant Robert requesting 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 7 of 31 Pg ID 7
Page 8 of 31

certain public documents pertaining to Kevyn Orr, the former Emergency Manager 

for the City of Detroit ("February 9th FOIA Request"). (See Plaintiff's February 

9th FOIA Request attached hereto as Exhibit C).

 26. In accordance with Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.235(2) of Michigan's FOIA, 

within five (5) business days of receiving Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA 

Request, Defendant Robert timely sent Plaintiff Davis a written notice extending, 

for not more than 10 business days, the period for which the Defendant Robert had 

to respond to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request. Accordingly, Defendant 

Robert's response to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request was now due on 

March 4, 2015. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 27. However, Defendant Robert failed to timely respond to Plaintiff Davis' 

February 9th FOIA Request by the March 4th due date. (See Plaintiff's affidavit 

attached hereto as Exhibit A; and see also Plaintiff's March 5, 2015 email to 

Defendant Robert attached hereto as Exhibit D).

 28. Accordingly, on March 5, 2015, Plaintiff Davis attempted to contact 

Defendant Robert by telephone to request that Defendant Robert email the 

Michigan Department of Treasury's official response to Plaintiff Davis' February 

9th FOIA Request. (See Plaintiff's March 5, 2015 email to Defendant Robert 

attached hereto as Exhibit D).

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 8 of 31 Pg ID 8
Page 9 of 31

 29. Defendant Robert did not return Plaintiff Davis' March 5, 2015 phone call 

nor did Defendant Robert send, via email, the Michigan Department of Treasury's 

official response to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request, which was due on 

March 4, 2015. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A). 

30. After not responding to Plaintiff Davis' March 5, 2015 email and failing 

to respond to Plaintiff Davis' numerous phone calls., finally, on March 11, 2015, 

just two (2) days before Plaintiff Davis was required to self-report to FPC 

Montgomery, Plaintiff Davis received, via first class mail at his home address, 

Defendant Robert's official response on behalf of the Michigan Department of 

Treasury's to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request ("Defendant Robert's 

March 2015 Response"). (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A; see 

also Defendant Robert's March 2015 Response attached hereto as Exhibit E).

 31. Defendant Robert's March 2015 Response, on behalf of the Michigan 

Department of Treasury, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Davis' 

February 9th FOIA Request. Specifically, Defendant Robert's March 2015 

Response granted Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request to the extent that the 

Michigan Department of Treasury had the public documents requested in their 

possession, but denied Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request to the extent 

that the Michigan Department of Treasury did not have the public documents 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 9 of 31 Pg ID 9
Page 10 of 31

requested in their possession. (See Defendant Robert's March 2015 Response 

attached hereto as Exhibit E). 

 32. Defendant Robert's March 2015 Response also required Plaintiff Davis to 

pay a minimum of at least $1,000 before a search was to be conducted to locate the 

public documents requested and before any documents would be released to 

Plaintiff Davis. (See Defendant Robert's March 2015 Response attached hereto as 

Exhibit E).

 33. Additionally, pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws§ 15.235(7) of Michigan's 

FOIA, Defendant Robert's March 2015 Response also stated and advised Plaintiff 

Davis that he had the right to appeal Defendant Robert's denial by commencing a 

civil action in the appropriate circuit court within 180 days after Defendant 

Robert's March 2015 Response or by appealing to the head of the Michigan 

Department of Treasury, which in this case is the State Treasurer. (See Defendant 

Robert's March 2015 Response attached hereto as Exhibit E).

 34. On March 13, 2015 at approx. 6 a.m., Plaintiff Davis boarded a Delta 

Airlines flight to Montgomery, Alabama to self-report to FPC Montgomery. 

Plaintiff Davis was required to self-report to FPC Montgomery by 12 noon on 

March 13, 2015. Plaintiff Davis timely reported to FPC Montgomery on March 

13, 2015 and began serving his 18-month sentence. (See Plaintiff's affidavit 

attached hereto as Exhibit A).

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 10 of 31 Pg ID 10
Page 11 of 31

 35. On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff Davis sent, via certified mail, Defendant 

Robert a written correspondence requesting a waiver of costs and fees associated 

with the production of the public documents Plaintiff Davis requested in his 

February 9th FOIA Request ("Plaintiff Davis' April 21, 2015 Letter"). Plaintiff 

Davis' April 21, 2015 Letter also requested Defendant Robert to advise him of his 

right to appeal Defendant Robert's partial denial of Plaintiff Davis' February 9th 

FOIA Request and also requested Defendant Robert to advise Plaintiff Davis as to 

whether Plaintiff Davis still had the right to receive the public documents he so 

requested in light of the fact that Plaintiff Davis was now incarcerated at FPC 

Montgomery. (See Plaintiff's April 21, 2015 Letter to Defendant Robert attached 

hereto as Exhibit F).

 36. On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff Davis received, via first class mail, a letter 

dated May 5, 2015 from Defendant Robert responding to Plaintiff Davis' April 21, 

2015 Letter. In the letter dated May 5, 2015, Defendant Robert advised Plaintiff 

Davis that in accordance with Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 15.231(2) and 15.232(c) "an 

individual serving a sentence of imprisonment... in a federal correctional facility, is 

not covered under the FOIA as those who may invoke the statute." (See Defendant 

Robert's May 5, 2015 Letter to Plaintiff Davis attached hereto as Exhibit G).

 37. On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff Davis sent, via certified mail, Defendant Robert 

a written correspondence seeking clarification as to whether Plaintiff Davis 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 11 of 31 Pg ID 11
Page 12 of 31

retained his appeal rights as afforded under Mich. Comp. Laws§ 15.240(1) of 

Michigan's FOIA to appeal Defendant Robert's partial denial of Plaintiff Davis' 

February 9th FOIA Request to the appropriate circuit court or to appeal said partial 

denial to the Michigan State Treasurer. (See Plaintiff Davis' May 18, 2015 Letter 

to Defendant Robert attached hereto as Exhibit H).

 38. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff Davis had not 

received a written response from Defendant Robert to Plaintiff Davis' May 18, 

2015 Letter. However, it is anticipated that Defendant Robert's response to 

Plaintiff Davis' May 18, 2015 Letter would be the same that Defendant Robert 

previously advised Plaintiff Davis that in accordance with Mich. Comp. Laws

§§15.231(2) AND 15.232(c) "an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment...in 

a federal correctional facility, is not covered under the FOIA as those who may 

invoke the statute."

 39. Defendant Robert's enforcement of Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against 

incarcerated individuals from invoking the rights and privileges afforded under the 

Michigan FOIA to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request violates Plaintiff 

Davis' First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of 

Grievances. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 40. Contrary to Defendant Robert's erroneous assumptions, Plaintiff Davis did 

not forfeit his First Amendment Constitutional Right to Petition the Government 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 12 of 31 Pg ID 12
Page 13 of 31

for Redress of Grievances when Plaintiff Davis self-reported to FPC Montgomery 

on March 13, 2015 to begin serving his 18-month sentence. Rather, Plaintiff Davis 

retained his First Amendment Constitutional Right to Petition the Government for 

Redress of Grievances when Plaintiff Davis began serving his 18-month sentence 

at FPC Montgomery on March 13, 2015. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto 

as Exhibit A).

 41. "[F]ederal courts must take cognizance of the valid constitutional claims of 

prison inmates." Turner v Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 

(1987).

 42. "Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the 

protections of the Constitution." Turner v Safely, 482 U.S. at 84.

 43. "Our cases hold that a convicted felon does not forfeit all constitutional 

protections by reasons of his conviction and confinement in prison." Meachum v 

Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976).

 44. "Like others, prisoners have the constitutional right to petition the 

Government for redress of their grievances..." Hudson v Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 

523, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984).

 45. It is well-established in the Sixth Circuit that: "There is no question that 

inmates retain may of the protections of the First Amendment, such as rights to 

free expression, Thornbaugh v Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 401, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 13 of 31 Pg ID 13
Page 14 of 31

L.Ed.2d 459 (1989); to petition the government for the redress of grievances, 

Johnson v Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); and to free 

exercise of religion, O'Lane v Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348, 107 S.Ct. 

2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987)." Bazetta v McGinnis, 430 F.3d 795, 804 (6th Cir. 

2005).

 46. The filing of a lawsuit is a form of petitioning activity protected under the 

First Amendment of the United States Constitution. As the United States Supreme 

Court determined, "...filing a complaint in court is a form of petitioning activity; 

"but baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to 

petition."" McDonald v Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 484, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 

(1985) (quoting Bill Johnson's Restaurants Inc v NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743, 103 

S.Ct. 2161, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983)).

 47. It is also well-established in the Sixth Circuit that the filing of a lawsuit is a 

protected activity under the First Amendment. See Eckerman v Tenn. Dept of 

Safety, 636 F.3d 202, 208 (6th Cir. 2010) ("The filing of a lawsuit to redress 

grievances is clearly protected activity under the First Amendment.")(citing 

Thaddeus-X v Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 396 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).

 48. It is also well-established in this district that the filing of a lawsuit is a 

protected activity under the First Amendment. See Pragovich v IRS, 676 

F.Supp.2d 557, 570 (E.D. Mich. 2009) ("Furthermore, "[t]he filing of a lawsuit 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 14 of 31 Pg ID 14
Page 15 of 31

carries significant constitutional protections, implicating the First Amendment 

right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and the right of access to 

courts."") (quoting Hoeber on Behalf of NLRB v Local 30, 939 F.2d 118, 126 (3rd 

Cir. 1991)).

 49. Therefore, it is clear that Plaintiff Davis had a First Amendment Right to 

file a lawsuit in the appropriate circuit court to appeal Defendant Robert's partial 

denial of Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request, as well as file a lawsuit in 

the appropriate circuit court to appeal Defendant Robert's decision to charge 

Plaintiff Davis for the production of the requested records pursuant to Michigan's 

FOIA.

 50. Additionally, Plaintiff Davis had a First Amendment Right to appeal 

Defendant Robert's decision directly to the Michigan State Treasurer pursuant to 

Michigan's FOIA for "the right to petition extends to all departments of the 

Government." California Transport v Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510, 92 

S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972).

 51. Plaintiff Davis desires to appeal Defendant Robert's decision regarding 

Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request by filing a lawsuit in the appropriate 

circuit court or by filing an appeal with the Michigan State Treasurer as Michigan's 

FOIA permits. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 15 of 31 Pg ID 15
Page 16 of 31

 52. As noted above, Plaintiff Davis did not forfeit his First Amendment Right 

to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances when he began serving his 

18-month sentence on March 13, 2015. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as 

Exhibit A).

 53. Defendant Robert's actions of enforcing Michigan's FOIA's prohibition 

against incarcerated individuals to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request 

violated Plaintiff Davis' First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for 

Redress of Grievances.

 54. It is anticipated that Defendant Robert will cite and rely on the Michigan 

Court of Appeals published opinion in Proctor v White Lake Twp Police Dept., 248 

Mich App. 457, 639 NW2d 332 (2001). However, the Michigan Court of Appeals 

holding in Proctor is not analogous to the facts of this case and the facts of this 

case are distinguishable from the facts in Proctor, supra. Therefore, the Michigan 

Court of Appeals holding in Proctor is not binding or controlling in this case. 

COUNT II

42 U.S.C. § 1983

VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT- Defendant Robert, In Her 

Official Capacity As The FOIA Coordinator for the Michigan Department of 

Treasury, Violated Plaintiff's Procedural Due Process Rights As Guaranteed Under 

the Fourteenth Amendment, To File An Appeal and To Obtain Public Documents 

By Enforcing Michigan's FOIA's Prohibition Against Incarcerated Persons To 

Plaintiff's February 9th FOIA Request.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 16 of 31 Pg ID 16
Page 17 of 31

 54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth herein.

 55. To adequately plead a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege that a 

defendant acting under state law, deprived her [him] of a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United Sates- in this instance, the Fourteenth 

Amendment right to due process. Thomas v Cohen, 304 F.3d 563, 568 (6th Cir. 

2002).

 56. "States may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due 

process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1." Daily Servs., LLC v Valentino, 

756 F.3d 893, 904 (6th Cir. 2014).

 57. "In order to establish a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must show 

that (1) he had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process 

Clause; (2) he was deprived of this protected interest; and (3) the state did not 

afford him adequate procedural rights prior to depriving him of the property 

interest." Women's Med. Pro'l Corp. v Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 611 (6th Cir. 2006) 

(citing Hahn v Star Bank, 190 F.3d 708, 716 (6th Cir. 1999)).

 58. "Property interests do not derive from the Constitution, but rather are 

created and defined by "existing rules or understandings that stem from 

independent sources such as state law...."" Silberstein v City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 17 of 31 Pg ID 17
Page 18 of 31

306, 311 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v Roth, 408 U.S. 

564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)).

 59. ""Procedural due process generally requires that the state provide a person 

with notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving that person of a 

property or liberty interest."" Daily Servs., LLC v Valentino, 756 F.3d 893, 904 

(6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Warren v City of Athens, Ohio, 411 F.3d 697, 708 (6th 

Cir. 2005)).

 60. Defendant Robert, in her official capacity, deprived Plaintiff Davis of his 

property interests of having the right to file an appeal in the appropriate circuit 

court as Mich. Comp. Laws§ 15.240(1) permits, as well as deprived Plaintiff Davis 

of his property interests to receive the public documents he so requested in his 

February 9th FOIA Request by enforcing Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against 

incarcerated persons to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request. (See 

Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 61. A legal cause of action is a protected property interest. Logan v 

Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) 

(citing Mulane v Cent. Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 399 U.S. 306 (1950)).

 62. Moreover, "[i]t is well-established that possessory interests in property 

invoke procedural due process protections." Thomas v Cohen, 304 F.3d 563, 576 

(6th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 18 of 31 Pg ID 18
Page 19 of 31

 63. Under Michigan's FOIA, Plaintiff Davis had the statutory right to appeal 

Defendant Robert's decision either to the circuit court or directly to the Michigan 

State Treasurer.

 64. Additionally, under Michigan's FOIA, Plaintiff Davis had a statutory right 

to receive copies of the public documents he so requested in his February 9th 

FOIA Request.

 65. "Property interests protected by the due process clause must be more than 

abstract desires for or attractions to a benefit. The due process clause protects only 

those interests to which one has a legitimate claim of entitlement. This has been 

defined to include any significant property interests... including statutory 

entitlements." Hamilton v Myers, 281 F.3d 520, 529 (6th Cir. 2002) (internal 

citations and quotation marks omitted).

 66. Plaintiff Davis' right to appeal Defendant Robert's decision to the 

appropriate circuit court and Plaintiff Davis' right to receive public documents are 

protected property interests that invoke procedural due process rights under the 

Fourteenth Amendment.

 66. Plaintiff Davis was deprived of these property rights without prior notice 

and/or hearing.

COUNT III

42 U.S.C. § 1983

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 19 of 31 Pg ID 19
Page 20 of 31

Violation First Amendment Right To Petition For Redress Of Grievances And 

Mich. Const. 1963, Art. 9, § 23 Defendant Robert, In Her Official Capacity, 

Violated Plaintiff's First Amendment Right To Petition Government for Redress of

Grievances and Mich. Const. 1963, art. 9, § 23.

 67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth and stated herein.

 68. On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff Davis sent, via certified mail, to Defendant 

Robert a NEW FOIA Request seeking financial documents in accordance with 

Mich. Const. 1963, art. 9, § 23 ("NEW FOIA Request"). (See Plaintiff Davis' 

NEW FOIA Request dated April 8, 2015 attached hereto as Exhibit I).

 69. On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff Davis received, via first class mail, a response 

dated April 16, 2015 from Defendant Robert advising Plaintiff Davis that pursuant 

to Mich. Comp. Laws §15.231(2) and §15.232(c) of Michigan's FOIA "that an 

individual incarcerated in a state, county, local or federal correctional facility is not 

granted access to public records under the Freedom of Information Act." (See 

Defendant Robert's April 16, 2015 response to Plaintiff Davis' NEW FOIA 

Request attached hereto as Exhibit J).

 70. Defendant Robert's decision to enforce the Michigan's FOIA's prohibition 

against incarcerated individuals to Plaintiff Davis' NEW FOIA Request violated 

Plaintiff Davis' First Amendment Right to Petition Government for Redress of 

Grievances.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 20 of 31 Pg ID 20
Page 21 of 31

 71. As noted above, Plaintiff Davis did not forfeit his First Amendment 

Constitutional Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances when 

he began serving his 18-month sentence at FPC Montgomery.

 72. Therefore, Plaintiff Davis retained his First Amendment Constitutional 

Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, in this case the 

Michigan Department of Treasury.

 73. Additionally, Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons 

from enjoying the rights and privileges of the statute violates Mich. Const. 1963, 

art. 9, § 23, which requires certain financial documents to be available for public 

inspection, regardless of whether the person is incarcerated or not.

COUNT IV

State-Law Claim

Michigan's FOIA Requires Defendant Robert, In Her Official Capacity As the 

FOIA Coordinator for the Michigan Department of Treasury, To Waive All Costs 

and Fees Associated With the Production and Search of the Public Documents 

Requested By Plaintiff In His February 9th FOIA Request.

 74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth and stated herein.

 75. Contrary to Defendant Robert's position, Michigan's FOIA requires that all 

costs and fees associated with the production and search for the public documents 

requested by Plaintiff Davis in his February 9th FOIA Request be waived.

 76. Mich. Comp. Laws§ 15.234(3) states in pertinent part:

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 21 of 31 Pg ID 21
Page 22 of 31

 (3)..... A fee shall not be charged for the costs of search, 

examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from 

nonexempt information as provided in section 14 unless failure to charge a 

fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the 

nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body 

specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs. A public 

body shall establish and publish procedures and guidelines to implement this 

subsection.

 77. The Michigan Department of Treasury has not identified the nature of these 

unreasonably high costs that Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request would 

cause. Furthermore, the Michigan Department of Treasury has failed to establish 

and publish any procedures and guidelines to implement the provisions of Mich. 

Comp. Laws§ 15.234(3).

 78. Accordingly, pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws§ 15.234(3), all fees and costs 

associated with the search, examination, and review of the public documents 

Plaintiff Davis requested in his February 9th FOIA Request shall be waived by the 

Defendant Robert.

COUNT V

42 U.S.C. 1983

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Defendant Robert, in her individual capacity, Retaliated Against Plaintiff Davis for 

Exercising His First Amendment Rights By Intentionally and Purposely Delaying 

Issuing A Response To Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 22 of 31 Pg ID 22
Page 23 of 31

 79. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth and stated herein.

 80. Prior to his incarceration, Plaintiff Davis successfully sued Defendant 

Robert, the Michigan Department of Treasury, and the former State Treasurer for 

violations of Michigan's Open Meetings Act ("OMA") and Michigan's FOIA in 

Ingham County Circuit Court, as well as Wayne County Circuit Court. (See 

Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 81. As a result of those successful litigations, a lot of media publicity was 

generated in which Plaintiff Davis publicly criticized the unlawful actions of the 

former State Treasurer and the staff of the Michigan Department of Treasury, 

including Defendant Robert. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit 

A).

 82. As a result of Plaintiff Davis exercising his First Amended Rights of 

Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances (filing lawsuits) and 

Freedom of Speech (publicly criticizing state treasury officials), Defendant Robert 

retaliated against Plaintiff Davis by purposely and intentionally delaying issuing an 

official response to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request. (See Plaintiff's 

affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 83. It is Plaintiff Davis' belief that Defendant Robert's assumed that if she 

delayed issuing an official response to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request, 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 23 of 31 Pg ID 23
Page 24 of 31

Plaintiff Davis would not be able to receive any of the public documents requested 

because Plaintiff Davis would be incarcerated beginning March 13, 2015, and thus 

the prohibition against incarcerated persons set forth under Michigan's FOIA 

would be applied. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 84. As further proof and evidence of Defendant Robert's retaliatory behavior, 

as noted above, Defendant Robert failed to return any of Plaintiff Davis' numerous 

telephone messages left at Defendant Robert's office regarding the Michigan 

Department of Treasury's official response to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA 

Request. Additionally, Defendant Robert failed to respond to Plaintiff Davis' 

March 5, 2015 email. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit A).

 85. Plaintiff Davis shall be awarded damages in excess of $50,000 for 

Defendant Robert's unconstitutional and retaliatory behavior.

COUNT VI

Injunctive Relief

 86. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth and stated herein.

 87. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, Defendant Robert 

from enforcing Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons from 

exercising the rights and privileges of the Michigan FOIA statute for it violates the 

First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 24 of 31 Pg ID 24
Page 25 of 31

COUNT VII

42 U.S.C. § 1983

First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Defendant Sue Hall, In Her Official Capacity As A Duly Appointed Member of the 

Wayne County Airport Authority, Retaliated Against Plaintiff For Exercising His 

First Amendment Rights.

 88. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth and stated herein.

 89. In October 2011, Plaintiff Davis successfully sued Defendant Sue Hall 

("Defendant Hall"), the Wayne County Airport Authority and the Wayne County 

Airport Authority Board in Wayne County Circuit Court for blatantly violating 

Michigan's Open Meetings Act ("OMA") with the hiring of Turkia Mullin, the 

former CEO of the Wayne County Airport Authority. (See Plaintiff's affidavit 

attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 90. A lot of media publicity came about as a result of Plaintiff Davis' OMA 

lawsuit against Defendant Hall and the Wayne County Airport Authority Board.

 91. Plaintiff Davis publicly criticized Defendant Hall in various media 

interviews because discovery documents revealed that Defendant Hall secretly 

negotiated the terms of Turkia Mullin's controversial severance agreement in secret 

and behind closed doors on behalf of the Wayne County Airport Authority Board 

in violation of Michigan's OMA.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 25 of 31 Pg ID 25
Page 26 of 31

 92. As noted above, in June 2012, Plaintiff Davis was selected by Michigan 

AFSCME Council 25 President, Al Garrett, to represent AFSCME at Harvard 

University's prestigious Senior Executives in State and Local Government 

Program, held at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. (See 

Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 93. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff Davis, Defendant Hall was also scheduled to 

attend the Harvard University's Senior Executives in State and Local Government 

Program, during the same time (June 2012) as Plaintiff Davis. (See Plaintiff's 

affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 94. During the first day of the program, all of the participants were required to 

stand up and give a brief introduction of themselves and give their title, position, 

and where they were from.

 95. During the introductions, Plaintiff Davis introduced himself as a union 

activist, and spoke about some of the successful lawsuits he filed that exposed 

public corruption. Specifically, Plaintiff Davis pointed out that Defendant Hall 

was one of the public officials whose corruption he had exposed. (See Plaintiff's 

affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 96. When it was time for Defendant Hall to give her introductory speech, 

Defendant Hall introduced herself as a duly appointed member of the Wayne 

County Airport Authority Board and attempted to rebuff Plaintiff Davis' statement 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 26 of 31 Pg ID 26
Page 27 of 31

regarding her alleged unlawful conduct. Defendant Hall during her introductory 

speech described Plaintiff Davis as a "nuisance" and as a person who files 

"frivolous lawsuits". (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 97. During the second day of the Harvard University program, Plaintiff Davis 

and the other participants in the Harvard University program, including Defendant 

Hall, went to a local restaurant/bar to eat and to have some drinks in an effort to 

get to know one another. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 98. During this night out, after having a few drinks, Defendant Hall started 

harassing and threatening Plaintiff Davis. Specifically, Defendant Hall declared 

that she was going to get Plaintiff Davis "kicked out" of the Harvard University 

program. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 99. At the end of the third day of the Harvard University program, the director 

of the program asked Plaintiff Davis to stay behind because he needed to speak to 

Plaintiff Davis about an important matter. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto 

as Exhibit B).

 100. Plaintiff Davis was told by the director of the program one of the 

participants in the program had brought to his attention that Plaintiff Davis was 

recently indicted for alleged wrongdoing while an elected member of the Highland 

Park Board of Education. Plaintiff Davis attempted to explain to the director of the 

program that Plaintiff Davis' indictment was known by the organizers and sponsors 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 27 of 31 Pg ID 27
Page 28 of 31

of the program prior to Plaintiff Davis flying to Harvard University, which was 

why Plaintiff Davis was allowed to participate. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached 

hereto as Exhibit B). 

 111. However, Plaintiff Davis was advised by the director of the Harvard 

University program that he could no longer participate in the program and that he 

would have to leave. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 112. A week or so later, Plaintiff Davis was contacted by a reporter from The 

Detroit News and/or Free Press seeking a comment from Plaintiff Davis regarding 

his departure from the Harvard University program. The reporter informed 

Plaintiff Davis that he had received a tip from Defendant Hall regarding Plaintiff 

Davis' departure from the Harvard University program. (See Plaintiff's affidavit 

attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 113. Plaintiff Davis did not provide the newspaper reporter with a comment and 

a brief story ran a day or so later in The Detroit News and/or Free Press. Plaintiff 

Davis was caused great embarrassment and injury as a result of Defendant Hall's 

retaliatory actions. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

 114. During the 2014 Golf Outing for the Wayne County Sherriff, Defendant 

Hall, visibly intoxicated, further harassed Plaintiff Davis by stating out loud in 

front of other elected and appointed officials that Plaintiff Davis owed Defendant 

Hall $50,000. (See Plaintiff's affidavit attached hereto as Exhibit B).

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 28 of 31 Pg ID 28
Page 29 of 31

 115. Defendant Hall also retaliated against Plaintiff Davis by interfering with 

contract negotiations for AFSCME Local 953, which is the local union that 

represents a vast majority of employees at the Wayne County Airport Authority. 

Plaintiff Davis was AFSCME Local 953's staff representative and chief negotiator 

from 2012 until September 18, 2014.

 116. "A plaintiff, in order to succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, 

must demonstrate the following: (1) that [he] was engaged in a constitutionally 

protected activity; (2) that the defendant's adverse action caused the plaintiff to 

suffer n injury that would likely chill a person of ordinary firmness from 

continuing to engage in that activity; and (3) that the adverse action was motivated 

at least in part as a response to the exercise of the plaintiff's constitutional rights." 

Adair v Charter County of Wayne, 452 F.3d 482, 492 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

Strouss v Michigan Dep't of Corrections, 250 F.3d 336, 345 (6th Cir. 2001)).

 117. Plaintiff Davis has satisfied each of the aforementioned elements.

 118. Plaintiff Davis shall be awarded damages in excess of $100,000 as a result 

of Defendant Hall's unconstitutional and unlawful retaliatory behavior that caused 

Plaintiff Davis great injury.

COUNT VIII

42 U.S.C. § 1988

Plaintiff Shall Be Awarded Attorney Fees and Costs.

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 29 of 31 Pg ID 29
Page 30 of 31

 119. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in the previous paragraphs as if they were fully set forth and stated herein.

 120. Plaintiff Davis shall be awarded his attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1988 for any relief granted for any of the counts properly pled and alleged 

above. See Deja Vu of Nashville Inc v Metro Gov't of Nashville and Davison 

County, 421 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2005); and see also Berger v City of Mayfield 

Heights, 265 F.3d 399, 406-407 (6th Cir. 2001).

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Davis PRAYS that this 

Honorable Court grants the requested relief as follows:

 A. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendant Robert's 

enforcement of Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons 

to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request violated Plaintiff Davis' First 

Amendment Right To Petition Government For Redress of Grievances.

 B. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendant Robert's 

enforcement of Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons 

to Plaintiff Davis' February 9th FOIA Request violated Plaintiff Davis' 

Procedural Due Process Rights as Guaranteed under the Fourteenth 

Amendment.

 C. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendant Robert's 

enforcement of Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons 

to Plaintiff Davis' NEW FOIA Request dated April 8, 2015 violated Plaintiff 

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 30 of 31 Pg ID 30
Page 31 of 31

Davis' First Amendment Right to Petition Government for Redress of 

Grievances and violates Mich. Const. 1963, art. 9, § 23.

 D. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendant Robert must 

waive all fees and costs associated with the production of the public 

documents Plaintiff Davis requested in his February 9th FOIA Request.

 E. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant Robert, in her 

individual capacity, retaliated against Plaintiff Davis for exercising his First 

Amendment Rights and award Plaintiff Davis damages in excess of $50,000.

 F. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant Hall, in her official 

capacity, retaliated against Plaintiff Davis for exercising his First 

Amendment Rights and award Plaintiff Davis damages in excess of 

$100,000.

 G. Issue injunctive relief enjoining Defendant Robert from enforcing 

Michigan's FOIA's prohibition against incarcerated persons.

 H. Award Plaintiff Davis attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

1988.

 I. Grant any further relief the Court deems appropriate, just and proper.

Dated: June 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ ANDREW A. PATERSON

 ______________________________

 ANDREW A. PATERSON (P18690)

2:15-cv-12076-MAG-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 06/08/15 Pg 31 of 31 Pg ID 31