Case: Sankofa v. Rose

2:21-cv-11468 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: June 23, 2021

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the unlawful traffic stop of two African American residents of Detroit who were racially profiled and subject to an unreasonable search and seizure. On June 23, 2021, two African American residents of Detroit filed this case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued four employees of the Michigan State Police under 42 USC § 1983. Represented by the ACLU Fund of Michigan, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as w…

This is a case about the unlawful traffic stop of two African American residents of Detroit who were racially profiled and subject to an unreasonable search and seizure.

On June 23, 2021, two African American residents of Detroit filed this case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs sued four employees of the Michigan State Police under 42 USC § 1983. Represented by the ACLU Fund of Michigan, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys fees. They claimed that their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated as a result of the defendants’ unlawful search and seizure and deprivation of equal protection.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they had been racially profiled when they were falsely accused of running a red light and detained for nearly two hours by Michigan State Police. During the time they were detained, the plaintiffs were asked if they had drugs in their possession and were subjected to searches. They brought the following claims:

Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments right against unlawful search and seizure
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants lacked any probable cause to stop them for a traffic violation and the search of their possessions was unwarranted.
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had profiled them based on race when they first stopped them for a traffic violation and then when they continued to search their possessions for drugs when there was no reason to suspect them of such possession.
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection (right to train)
Lastly, the plaintiffs alleged that the director of Michigan State Police failed to take actions to prevent discriminatory practices by his subordinates that he was aware of.

On October 5, 2022, the parties stipulated to dismissal, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice. The lawsuit was settled after the Michigan State Police hired an independent expert to look into whether racial/ethnic disparities exist in the manner MSP conducts traffic stops. Michigan State Police agreed to have its traffic stop data investigated and analyzed by outside experts to determine why they disproportionately pull over people of color. The parties privately settled and agreed to let the court retain jurisdiction over the terms of their settlement agreement.

As of September 26, 2023, this case was closed.

In December 2023, independent experts released their report on whether racial/ethnic disparities occur during traffic enforcement encounters. This report revealed that Michigan State University (MSU) researchers found that African-American drivers experienced significant disparities during traffic stops by MSP. They found that this was not due to widespread discriminatory policing practices. However, researchers were able to identify specific traffic enforcement policies as well as program initiatives that may have contributed to the racial disparities. The report suggested 53 findings and provided related recommendations for the MSP on how they can reduce racial disparities in their traffic enforcement.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Rhea Sharma (9/30/2023)

Renuka Wagh (1/1/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60006270/parties/sankofa-v-rose/

Judge(s)

Leitman, Matthew Frederick (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Chaney, Nakisha N. (Michigan)

Fancher, Mark P. (Michigan)

Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan)

Attorney for Defendant

Barranco, Kyla L. (Michigan)

Judge(s)

Leitman, Matthew Frederick (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Chaney, Nakisha N. (Michigan)

Fancher, Mark P. (Michigan)

Korobkin, Daniel S. (Michigan)

Attorney for Defendant

Barranco, Kyla L. (Michigan)

Waddell, Mary A. (Michigan)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

	Document
1 2:21-cv-11468	Complaint	June 23, 2021	June 23, 2021 Complaint
2:21-cv-11468	Settlement Agreement and Final Release of All Claims	Sept. 30, 2022	Sept. 30, 2022 Settlement Agreement

show / hide documents

Resources

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Finding Aid: Traffic Stop Litigation Collection Tessa Bialek	This document is a guide to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse’s Traffic Stop Litigation collection, which gathers information about dozens of large-scale lawsuits challenging traffic stop pol…	Fall 2024	Nov. 26, 2024
Michigan State Police Hires Experts to Investigate Whether Troopers Racially Profile Drivers of Color Dana Chicklas	DETROIT – Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) settled a lawsuit filed against the Michigan State Police (MSP) on behalf of two of many African Americans who MSP has stopped in…	Oct. 5, 2022	Oct. 5, 2022 https://www.aclumich.org/...

show / hide resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60006270/sankofa-v-rose/

Last updated June 28, 2025, 12:18 a.m.

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT filed by Camara Sankofa, Shanelle Thomas against Richard Birmingham, Joseph Gasper, Adam Kusch, Matthew Rose with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-8510627 - Fee: $ 402. County of 1st Plaintiff: Wayne - County Where Action Arose: Oakland - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Fancher, Mark) (Entered: 06/23/2021)	June 23, 2021	June 23, 2021 Clearinghouse
2	SUMMONS Issued for * All Defendants * (TTho) (Entered: 06/23/2021)	June 23, 2021	June 23, 2021 PACER
	A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (TTho)	June 23, 2021	June 23, 2021 PACER
3	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel S. Korobkin on behalf of Camara Sankofa, Shanelle Thomas. (Korobkin, Daniel) (Entered: 06/23/2021)	June 23, 2021	June 23, 2021 PACER
	Notice to Parties of Consent of a Civil Action before a Magistrate Judge Option	June 23, 2021	June 23, 2021 PACER
4	NOTICE of Appearance by Nakisha N. Chaney on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Chaney, Nakisha) (Entered: 07/08/2021)	July 8, 2021	July 8, 2021 PACER
5	CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Joseph Gasper served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Chaney, Nakisha) (Entered: 07/21/2021)	July 21, 2021	July 21, 2021 PACER
6	NOTICE of Appearance by Kyla L. Barranco on behalf of All Defendants. (Barranco, Kyla) (Entered: 07/28/2021)	July 28, 2021	July 28, 2021 PACER
7	NOTICE of Appearance by Mary A. Waddell on behalf of All Defendants. (Waddell, Mary) (Entered: 07/28/2021)	July 28, 2021	July 28, 2021 PACER
8	STIPULATED ORDER Extending Deadline for Defendants to File Responsive Pleadings re 1 Complaint. Response due by 9/10/2021. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon) (Entered: 08/03/2021)	Aug. 3, 2021	Aug. 3, 2021 PACER
9	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Adam Kusch waiver sent on 7/12/2021, answer due 9/10/2021. (Chaney, Nakisha) (Entered: 08/04/2021)	Aug. 4, 2021	Aug. 4, 2021 PACER
10	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Matthew Rose waiver sent on 7/12/2021, answer due 9/10/2021. (Chaney, Nakisha) (Entered: 08/04/2021)	Aug. 4, 2021	Aug. 4, 2021 PACER
11	WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed. Richard Birmingham waiver sent on 7/12/2021, answer due 9/10/2021. (Chaney, Nakisha) (Entered: 08/04/2021)	Aug. 4, 2021	Aug. 4, 2021 PACER
12	ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses with Jury Demand by All Defendants. (Barranco, Kyla) (Entered: 09/10/2021)	Sept. 10, 2021	Sept. 10, 2021 PACER
13	ORDER to Attend Telephonic Scheduling Conference and Notice of Requirements for Submission of Discovery Plan. (TELEPHONIC Scheduling Conference set for 10/19/2021 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR IMPORTANT DEADLINE AND CALL-IN INFORMATION) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)	Sept. 10, 2021	Sept. 10, 2021 RECAP
14	DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Chaney, Nakisha) (Entered: 10/12/2021)	Oct. 12, 2021	Oct. 12, 2021 PACER
	TEXT-ONLY NOTICE: Telephonic Scheduling Conference on 10/19/2021 is Cancelled re 13 Order to Attend Telephonic Scheduling Conference. The Court will issue a scheduling order pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan. (HMon)	Oct. 12, 2021	Oct. 12, 2021 PACER
	Text-Only Notice of Hearing Cancelled	Oct. 12, 2021	Oct. 12, 2021 PACER
15	CORRECTED DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Chaney, Nakisha) Modified on 10/19/2021 (LHos). (Entered: 10/19/2021)	Oct. 19, 2021	Oct. 19, 2021 PACER
16	CASE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 4/15/2022, Expert Discovery due by 7/15/2022, Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 8/15/2022, Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/11/2023 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, Jury Trial set for 1/24/2023 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Refer to image for additional dates) (HMon) (Entered: 10/20/2021)	Oct. 20, 2021	Oct. 20, 2021 PACER
	NOTICE of Error directed to: Kyla L. Barranco re 17 Certificate of Service. Document is prohibited discovery, disclosure or a certificate of service thereof. Document was stricken. [No Image Associated with this docket entry] (TTho)	Nov. 22, 2021	Nov. 22, 2021 PACER
18	STIPULATED ORDER Extending Defendants' Time for Response to Plaintiffs' First Discovery Requests. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon) (Entered: 11/22/2021)	Nov. 22, 2021	Nov. 22, 2021 PACER
	Error	Nov. 22, 2021	Nov. 22, 2021 PACER
19	STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya) (Entered: 02/08/2022)	Feb. 8, 2022	Feb. 8, 2022 PACER
20	FIRST STIPULATED ORDER Amending Scheduling Order. (Fact Discovery due by 5/30/2022, Expert Discovery due by 8/29/2022, Dispositive Motion Cut-off RESET for 9/29/2022.) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya) (Entered: 04/11/2022)	April 11, 2022	April 11, 2022 PACER
21	SECOND STIPULATED ORDER Amending Scheduling Order. (Fact Discovery due by 8/1/2022, Expert Discovery due by 10/28/2022, Dispositive Motion Cut-off RESET for 11/29/2022, Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 3/13/2023 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, Jury Trial RESET for 3/28/2023 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman.) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya) (Entered: 05/17/2022)	May 17, 2022	May 17, 2022 PACER
22	THIRD STIPULATED ORDER Amending Scheduling Order. (Fact Discovery due by 9/30/2022, Expert Discovery due by 12/27/2022, Dispositive Motion Cut-off RESET for 1/30/2023, Final Pretrial Conference RESET for 5/24/2023 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman,, Jury Trial RESET for 6/6/2023 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya) (Entered: 07/26/2022)	July 26, 2022	July 26, 2022 PACER
23	STIPULATION AND ORDER of Dismissal With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya) (Entered: 10/05/2022)	Oct. 5, 2022	Oct. 5, 2022 RECAP

show / hide docket entries