Opinion ID: 785876
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Harajli's equal protection claim

Text: 31 Harajli finally contends that Lt. Maier refused to accept the stolen property form, or to pursue the investigation of Nada, because of Harajli's national origin or gender, thereby violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to the equal protection of the laws. He argues that the statement in this country we don't pull gun on woman demonstrates that Maier's decision not to pursue the investigation of Nada was based upon Harajli's status as a male Arab-American. 32 Neither party cites a case where an equal protection claim was based upon the failure to prosecute someone for a crime, and we have been unable to find any. But this court has decided several cases that involved a claim of selective prosecution, where the issue was whether the decision to prosecute a particular person was based upon discriminatory criteria. These cases apply with equal force to the present case. The facts are slightly different but the ultimate issue is the same — did law enforcement officials prosecute members of one group but not another because of a constitutionally protected characteristic? 33 In Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303 (6th Cir.2000), this court explained that [s]elective enforcement claims are judged according to ordinary Equal Protection standards, which require a petitioner to show both a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory effect. Id. at 318. Gardenshire also articulated the following elements of a selective prosecution claim: 34 First, [an official] must single out a person belonging to an identifiable group, such as those of a particular race or religion, or a group exercising constitutional rights, for prosecution even though he has decided not to prosecute persons not belonging to that group in similar situations. Second, [the official] must initiate the prosecution with a discriminatory purpose. Finally, the prosecution must have a discriminatory effect on the group which the defendant belongs to. 35 With regard to the first element, it is an absolute requirement that the plaintiff make at least a prima facie showing that similarly situated persons outside her category were not prosecuted. Furthermore, there is a strong presumption that the state actors have properly discharged their official duties, and to overcome that presumption the plaintiff must present clear evidence to the contrary; the standard is a demanding one. 36 Id. at 319 (emphasis added) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 37 The district court in the present case granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Harajli's equal protection claim because [t]here's no evidence at all that he was treated differently from either similarly situated women or non-Arab-Americans. And according to Gardenhire, it is an absolute requirement that the plaintiff make at least a prima facie showing that similarly situated persons outside [his or] her category were treated differently. Harajli, however, has produced no evidence showing that either Maier or the Huron Township Police Department as a whole have pursued investigations in similar circumstances where the complaining party was a woman or non-Arab-American. His equal protection claim therefore fails. 38