Case: Lowden v. Clare County
1:09-cv-11209 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Filed Date: April 1, 2009
Closed Date: Nov. 18, 2011
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On April 1, 2009, two residents of Clare County, Michigan brought a lawsuit against Clare County and two sheriff's deputies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs alleged that Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.167d (the “Michigan funeral protest statute”) violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on the investigatory stop and subsequent arrest of the plaintiffs during a funeral procession on September 26, 2009. The plaintiffs’ counsel included the ACLU of Michigan.
The Michigan funeral protest statute provides: “(1) A person shall not do any of the following within 500 feet of a building or other location where a funeral, memorial service, or viewing of a deceased person is being conducted or within 500 feet of a funeral procession or burial ... (c) Engage in any other conduct that the person knows or should reasonably know will disturb, disrupt, or adversely affect the funeral, memorial service, viewing of the deceased person, funeral procession, or burial. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is a disorderly person and is guilty of a felony punishable as provided under section 168. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.167d. A violation of the statute is punishable by up to two years imprisonment. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.168.”
The plaintiffs’ claims were based on challenging the “adversely affect” language of the statute, its application to an area within 500 feet of a funeral or related event, and its general application to a funeral or related events. The plaintiffs alleged four counts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including: (1) violation of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights based on the statute’s overbreadth; (2) violation of the plaintiff's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because of the vagueness of the statutory provision; (3) violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and (4) Clare County’s municipal liability for its violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by all the defendants; a declaration that the Michigan funeral protest statute was unconstitutional on its face; compensatory damages and attorney’s fees incurred to defend criminal charges; fees to recover the plaintiffs’ van from an impound lot; and costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The case was assigned to District Judge Thomas L. Ludington.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on July 30, 2009. On November 24, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and for declaratory relief.
On January 29, 2010, the Michigan Attorney General intervened in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) to defend the constitutionality of the Michigan funeral protest statute. On the same day, the Michigan Attorney General defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
On March 26, 2010, Judge Ludington ruled on three motions: (1) County and individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to dismiss filed on January 30, 2010, (2) the plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment filed on November 24, 2009, and (3) the Attorney General defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on January 29, 2010. 709 F.Supp.2d 540.
First, the court granted in part and denied in part the County and individual defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the County and individual defendants were not entitled to dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims because the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly suggest an actionable municipal policy. On the motion to dismiss, the court determined that the County defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment cause of action or the plaintiffs’ as-applied First and Fourteenth Amendment causes of action, because the County defendants’ conduct violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. However, the Court found that the two County defendant sheriffs were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment facial challenges to the Michigan funeral protest statute, because it was not clearly established that the statute was unconstitutional on its face.
Second, the court denied in part and denied without prejudice in part the plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings without prejudice, and invited additional briefing on the constitutionality of the statute.
Third, the court denied without prejudice the Michigan Attorney General defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the factual circumstances of the plaintiffs’ arrest to not be needed for determining the constitutionality of the statute.
The court, on July 1, 2010, entered judgment on the petition for declaratory relief. 709 F.Supp.2d 569. The court considered Sixth Circuit precedent to determine whether declaratory relief was appropriate, particularly whether a declaratory judgment “will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue” and will “terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.” In weighing the factors contributing to the principles, the court found it was appropriate to entertain the request for declaratory relief but stipulated that the case must proceed further before determining the precise scope of relief.
In the same order, the court considered the Attorney General’s arguments that the court should abstain from considering the constitutionality of the funeral protest statute under the Pullman doctrine and should abstain from hearing the case under the Burford doctrine. The court found that Pullman abstention was not appropriate, given the overbreadth and vagueness of the statute. The court also found that Burford abstention was not appropriate, as the Attorney General’s statements on the consequences of declaratory relief were contradictory and that relief would implicate a single law and not a complex regulatory scheme.
On July 16, 2010, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to file a first amended complaint on October 5, 2010. However, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint as moot on October 8, 2010.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with a jury demand on October 8, 2010. The amended complaint included additional defendants, particularly individual officers of Clare County Sheriff’s Department.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on February 22, 2011 against the County defendants and individual plaintiffs, claiming that they were arrested under an unconstitutional statute that was applied and enforced by such defendants. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment as to liability only, leaving the question of damages to a jury. The County defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 3, 2011.
On April 6, 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for declaratory judgment. 2011 WL 1304869. The court found it would be prudent to decline the motion, given that the parties had proceedings to litigate the claims.
On September 8, 2011, the court entered judgment on the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, filed on February 22, 2011, and the County defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed on March 3, 2011. 2011 WL 3958488.
First, the court ordered that the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted in part. The court found that because it was always unlawful to enforce a facially unconstitutional statute, a person arrested under the authority of such a statute necessarily suffered a constitutional injury and consequently the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated. The court also found that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, that the Michigan funeral protest statute was unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as it prohibited conduct that would “adversely affect” a funeral or funeral-related event as set forth in the statute. The court denied the plaintiff’s due process violation claim, because the court found that the plaintiffs confused their constitutionality challenge of the statute with the constitutional conduct of the arresting officer.
Second, the court granted County defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ municipal liability claim, because the court found that the municipality did not have a policy of violating constitutional sufficient to impose liability under the Monell doctrine.
The parties reached a settlement agreement on November 14, 2011 with the County defendant agreeing to pay $122,500. The case was dismissed with prejudice and without costs per the terms of a settlement agreement on November 18, 2011. This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Takeshi Yamamoto (12/1/2022)
Andrew Eslich (2/10/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4291488/parties/lowden-v-clare-county-of/
Davis, Hugh M. (Michigan)
Heenan, Cynthia (Michigan)
Aseltyne, Patrick A. (Michigan)
Field, S. Randall (Michigan)
Kolkema, Jason D. (Michigan)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4291488/lowden-v-clare-county-of/
Last updated April 15, 2026, 5:41 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 1, 2009
Closing Date: Nov. 18, 2011
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff was a residents of Clare County, Michigan state
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
County
Clare Country
State
State of Michigan
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Michigan 1:09-cv-11209
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Amount Defendant Pays: $122,500
Order Duration: 2011 - 2011
Issues
Policing:
Case Summary of Lowden v. Clare County, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/43536/ (last updated 2/10/2024).