|
EDWARD DROGOSCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TIMOTHY METCALF, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 05-60071—John Corbett O’Meara, District Judge.
Argued: December 11, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 25, 2009
Before: MARTIN and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; CARR, Chief District Judge.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Timothy Metcalf, a parole agent with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), placed Edward Drogosch under arrest based on the mistaken belief that Drogosch had violated the terms of his probation. Because Metcalf did not have the proper type of paperwork with him to place Drogosch in the custody of the Wayne County Jail as a probation violator, Metcalf decided to lodge Drogosch in the jail using a type of form that identified him as a parole violator—a class of prisoners that Metcalf knew would not be entitled to a prompt probable-cause hearing before a judge. As a result, Drogosch lingered in jail for 13 days before being released.
Drogosch subsequently sued Agent Metcalf and several other defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants’ unlawful search and arrest, as well their failure to present him to a judge promptly following the arrest. Metcalf now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment that he had sought on the basis of qualified immunity. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
|
STEPHEN MICHAEL FLEMING, Petitioner-Appellee, v. LINDA METRISH, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 04-72365—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.
Argued: October 30, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 25, 2009
Before: CLAY, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Stephen Michael Fleming was convicted of second-degree murder and a related firearm offense. He was sentenced to life in prison on the two charges. Fleming then petitioned for state postconviction relief, but was turned down at all levels of the state judiciary. He subsequently sought habeas corpus relief in federal court, arguing that the state trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress his confession and by not allowing him to call a witness who purportedly would have aided his defense. The district court conditionally granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case with instructions to deny Fleming’s petition.