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:

  1. 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. 
  2. 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. 
  3. 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 parties privately settled and agreed to let the court retain jurisdiction over the terms of their settlement agreement. 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. 

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

Summary Authors

Rhea Sharma (9/30/2023)

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)

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

Resources

Docket

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

Last updated April 21, 2024, 3:02 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
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
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) (Entered: 09/10/2021)

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

Case Details

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 23, 2021

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Two individuals residing in Detroit, Michigan.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU of Michigan

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Michigan, State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Issues

General:

Failure to train

Racial profiling

Policing:

Traffic Stops

Discrimination-area:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black