Opinion ID: 4520270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Summary Judgment Order

Text: In November 2016, just under two years after the repossession and arrest, Jiries AbuJoudeh filed suit in federal court. While Abu-Joudeh initially named several police officers and the repossession agents as defendants, the only relevant claim for this appeal is that against Scott Sheets for allegedly breaking into Abu-Joudeh’s garage, thereby violating his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.1 After the parties conducted discovery, Sheets moved for summary judgment, arguing that Abu-Joudeh failed to present “any evidence” that Sheets “unlawfully enter[ed] Plaintiff’s garage.” (Mot. for Summ. J., R. 55 at PageID #357 (emphasis omitted).) Inexplicably, Abu-Joudeh’s counsel never deposed Sheets or sent him any discovery requests, and so Sheets submitted a one-page affidavit saying he “did not open Plaintiff’s garage without consent, did not enter Plaintiff’s garage without consent, and did not enter Plaintiff’s vehicle or participate in its repossession.” (Sheets Aff., R. 55-10 at PageID #431.)2 Sheets also pointed to Yasmeen’s inability to tell whether it was the “third officer” or one of the repossession agents who actually broke into the garage, and the fact that Yasmeen did not recognize Scott Sheets’s name when asked at her deposition. However, while characterizing these documents as supporting summary judgment, Sheets also pointed to the police report noting his presence at the scene and reflecting Schneider’s request for Sheets to watch Yasmeen, as well Leaveck’s testimony that it was a police officer who let the repossession agents into the garage. 1 In the district court, Abu-Joudeh voluntarily dismissed his claims against Heather Schneider and Rick Sebring, and never challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the repossession agents and their company, leaving Sheets as the only remaining defendant. 2 While Sheets cabins his affidavit to whether he opened or entered the garage “without consent” (Sheets Aff., R. 55-10 at PageID #431), Yasmeen testified that neither she nor Jiries gave anyone permission to enter the garage. No. 19-1337 Abu-Joudeh v. Schneider, et al. Page 5 Abu-Joudeh’s response, though not a model of clarity, noted that the police report identified Sheets and that Yasmeen provided a physical description of the “third officer” that could allow him to be identified as Sheets. Rather than stop there, Abu-Joudeh also submitted a “Declaration of Yasmeen Abu-Joudeh” identifying Scott Sheets as the third officer. Yasmeen says that she knows this officer was Sheets based on a photograph—apparently a picture of a computer screen showing a news article featuring Sheets—that was attached to her declaration. This “declaration” was unsworn, contained no statement that it was submitted under penalty of perjury, and was electronically signed by typing Yasmeen’s name. Sheets’s reply brief was dedicated to attacking this declaration as unsworn, unsigned, and in contradiction to Yasmeen’s prior deposition testimony. The motion was then referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended denying Sheets’s motion for summary judgment. Abu-Joudeh v. Schneider (Abu-Joudeh I), No. 16-13893, 2019 WL 2219738, at  (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2019), adopted in part and rejected in part, 2019 WL 1090746 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2019). While the magistrate judge held that Yasmeen’s declaration was invalid and refused to consider it, id. at  n.3, she found that the remaining evidence was enough to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Sheets was the officer who opened Abu-Joudeh’s garage, id. at –4. Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that “Yasmeen testified to seeing an officer with a metal bar breaking the lock to the garage,” that this was the third officer who arrived at the scene, and that Yasmeen provided a physical description of this third officer. Id.3 But in describing the