UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

STACY MCINTYRE, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12214 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

OGEMAW COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

On June 18, 2015 Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of all female inmates 

of the Ogemaw County Jail who participated in a certain Job Work program (the “Work 

Program”), or elected not to participate in the Work Program due to fears of constitutional 

violations related to the program. See ECF No. 1. The Defendants identified by Plaintiff were 

Ogemaw County Board of Commissioners (“OCBC”), Howie S. Hanft, and James Raymond 

Gustafson. Id. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 18, 2015, alleging that 

Gustafson, a former employee of the Ogemaw County Sheriff Department, assaulted, battered 

and sexually harassed female inmates who were incarcerated at the Ogemaw County Jail and 

involved in the Work Program. See Am. Compl, ECF No. 13. Plaintiffs alleged five counts 

arising from Defendants’ conduct: (1) Deprivation of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 

1983; (2) Gross negligence; (3) Assault and battery; (4) Invasion of privacy; and (5) Negligent 

and Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. Plaintiffs have since disclaimed their class 

action request, and have proceeded only on their individual claims. 

I. 

1:15-cv-12214-TLL-PTM Doc # 76 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1616
- 2 - 

Defendant Gustafson was served on July 14, 2015, but did not file an answer. See ECF 

No. 14. Accordingly, on August 19, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a request for default as to Defendant 

Gustafson. See ECF No. 15. In compliance with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 55.1, 

Plaintiff’s request properly included the manner of service and location where the Defendant was 

served. Id. Accordingly, on August 20, 2016 the clerk entered default as to Defendant 

Gustafson. See ECF No. 16. The clerk certified that Defendant was served with the notice of 

default. Id. 

On September 15, 2016 summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendant with 

regard to a number of Plaintiffs facing procedural bars. See ECF No. 60. On November 4, 216 

the parties notified that Court that they had reached a settlement with the non-defaulted 

Defendants. A stipulated order of dismissal as to the non-defaulted Defendants was entered on 

January 30, 2017. See ECF No. 74. 

On February 9, 2017 Plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment as to Defendant 

Gustafson pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). See ECF No. 75. In their 

motion, Plaintiffs ask that damages be awarded in the following amounts: 

 Stacy McIntyre: $50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Candy Olstrom: $50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Heather Miles: $50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Laurie Bickel $50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Misty Lynn Edwards: $50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Krystal Waterman-Rush: $50,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Tina Bahr: $25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Tammy McElroy: $25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

1:15-cv-12214-TLL-PTM Doc # 76 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1617
- 3 - 

 April Morgan: $25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Tina Terkawi: $25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary 

 Candice McCarthy: $25,000 compensatory/ $10,000 exemplary1

See ECF No. 75. In sum, Plaintiffs seek $425,000 in compensatory damages and $110,000 in 

exemplary damages. 

II. 

A judgment by default may be entered against a defendant who has not pleaded or 

otherwise defended against an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Before a default judgment may 

enter, a party first must obtain a default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once a default is entered, the 

defendants are considered to have admitted the well pleaded allegations in the complaint, 

including jurisdiction. Ford Motor Company v. Cross, 441 F.Supp.2d 837, 845 (E. D. Mich. 

2006) (citing Visioneering Construction v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty, 661 F.2d 119, 124 (6th 

Cir. 1981)). Here, Plaintiffs properly obtained a default against Defendant Gustafson, and the 

clerk certified that a notice of default was served on Defendant Gustafson. 

After a party secures the entry of default, the party may apply for a default judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). In reviewing an application for a default judgment, “[t]he court may 

conduct hearings or make referrals ... when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) 

conduct and accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any 

allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). If a party 

against whom default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by representative, “that 

party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 7 days 

before the hearing.” Id. While the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are taken as 

 

1

 As Plaintiffs have repeatedly been warned, Candice McCarthy was never properly included as a Plaintiff in this 

action. While Plaintiffs obtained leave to file an amended complaint adding her as a Plaintiff, no amended 

complaint was filed. 

1:15-cv-12214-TLL-PTM Doc # 76 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1618
- 4 - 

true when a defendant is in default, damages are not. Ford Motor Company, 441 F.Supp.2d at 

848 (citing Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U.S. 104 (1885)). “Ordinarily, the District Court must hold 

an evidentiary proceeding in which the defendant has the opportunity to contest the amount [of 

damages].” Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation 

and citation omitted). However, Rule 55 gives the court the discretion to determine whether an 

evidentiary hearing is necessary, or whether to rely on detailed affidavits or documentary 

evidence to determine damages. Stephenson v. El Batrawi, 524 F.3d 907, 916 (8th Cir. 2008). 

 As noted above, whether default judgment is appropriate depends upon the well-pleaded 

allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint. Here, ten Plaintiffs and a party who has not been included 

in a properly filed complaint seek default judgment against Defendant Gustafson. Lacking in 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint and their current motion are any specific factual allegations with 

regard to each Plaintiff. Problematically, while the complaint broadly asserts that Defendant 

Gustafson engaged in inappropriate and non-consensual touching of all Plaintiffs, at the time of 

their depositions it appears that at least one Plaintiff testified that she had consented to the 

touchings. See, e.g., ECF No. 75 Ex. 14. Plaintiffs have also not established their legal theories. 

For instance, Plaintiffs have pled an invasion of privacy claim against Defendant Gustafson, 

asserting that “[t]he inappropriate and non-consensual touching of female inmates constituted an 

invasion of privacy.” See Compl. ¶ 58. However, under Michigan law the tort of invasion of 

privacy does not apply to non-consensual touchings. Instead, the tort of invasion of privacy is 

intended to protect a plaintiff against (1) intrusion upon seclusion, solitude, or private affairs, (2) 

public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, (3) publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light, 

and/or (4) misappropriation of a plaintiff’s name or likeness. See Battaglieri v. Mackinac Ctr. 

1:15-cv-12214-TLL-PTM Doc # 76 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1619
- 5 - 

For Pub. Policy, 680 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Tobin v. Civil Service 

Comm., 331 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. 1982). 

 While Plaintiffs need not come forward with extensive evidence in support of their 

claims in order to obtain a default judgment, they do maintain the minimal burden of stating 

valid claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs will therefore be directed to submit a 

supplemental brief (including supplemental affidavits, if Plaintiffs seek to avoid the need for inperson testimony), setting forth (1) legal authority establishing that the five counts set forth in 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint are valid legal theories in light of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, 

and (2) specific factual allegations as to each Plaintiff demonstrating her entitlement to relief 

against Defendant Gustafson. 

III. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to submit a supplemental 

brief, not to exceed 25 pages, setting forth (1) legal authority establishing that the five counts set 

forth in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint are valid legal theories in light of Plaintiffs’ factual 

allegations, and (2) specific factual allegations as to each Plaintiff demonstrating her entitlement 

to relief against Defendant Gustafson. The brief must be submitted on or before March 14, 2017. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: February 27, 2017 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on February 27, 2017. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cv-12214-TLL-PTM Doc # 76 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1620