UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STANLEY PRICE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CV-14518

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

MAG. VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

STATE TREASURER, MICHAEL

A. COX, JUANDISHA HARRIS, 

CITY OF DETROIT OFFICE OF

THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Stanley Price’s pro se action alleging

that defendants have unlawfully frozen his pecuniary assets. Defendants Cox and

Harris filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a brief in

response. The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation recommending

that the motion be granted. Objections to that report have not been filed by plaintiff

within the established time period. The Court has reviewed the file, record, and

magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the MDOC. On September 5, 2008,

defendant State Treasurer filed a complaint in Ingham County Circuit Court against

plaintiff and the City of Detroit pursuant to the State Correctional Facility

Reimbursement Act, M.C.L. § 800.401 et seq. Defendant State Treasurer sought 90

percent of any pension benefits plaintiff would receive from the City of Detroit as

2:08-cv-14518-GCS-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 134
2

reimbursement for the costs of plaintiff’s current and future incarceration. The attorneys

of record for defendant State Treasurer in the state action are defendants Cox and

Harris. The current status of the state action is unknown.

On October 10, 2008, plaintiff filed this complaint against defendants, alleging

that he has pecuniary assets within the City of Detroit Office of Retirement Systems,

and that his wife is unable to retrieve those assets because defendants Cox and Harris

had plaintiff’s account frozen. 

In her report and recommendation, the magistrate judge analyzed the relevant

factors under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 242 U.S. 800

(1976), known as the Colorado River doctrine. The magistrate judge recommends that

the doctrine applies in this case for the following reasons. The Michigan state court

obtained jurisdiction before this Court, and the state case has progressed further. 

There is a large risk of piecemeal litigation should this Court exercise jurisdiction, and it

is unnecessary for this Court to exercise jurisdiction because the state court is capable

of hearing plaintiff’s constitutional arguments and protecting plaintiff’s rights. The

remaining factors are neutral in this case, including which forum is more convenient to

the parties, the source of governing law, and the presence of concurrent jurisdiction. 

The Court agrees with the analysis conducted by the magistrate judge, and therefore

accepts her recommendation that the Colorado River abstention doctrine applies in this

case. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the magistrate's report and recommendation regarding

abstention is accepted as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion is GRANTED for the

2:08-cv-14518-GCS-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 135
3

reasons well-developed in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 23, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

April 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14518-GCS-VMM Doc # 12 Filed 04/23/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 136