New Filing

Yesterday, we filed this reply brief in the matter of Detroit Entertainment LLC et. al v. Romanski. The original cert petition, docketed number 06-38 on July 10, can be found here. [UPDATE: 9/13]: The brief in opposition can be now be downloaded here.

The petition presents the following question:

Petitioners are a private casino and one of its security guards. A jury found that the guard arrested respondent, a guest of the casino, without probable cause. It awarded her compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit held, as a matter of law, that petitioners’ conduct constituted “state action” subjecting petitioners to liability under Section 1983. The court rested its decision on a provision of Michigan law authorizing a licensed private security guard with probable cause to arrest an individual on her employer’s premises.

The Questions Presented are:

1. Has the Sixth Circuit fundamentally departed from this Court’s state action jurisprudence, faithfully applied by other circuits, holding that private conduct that is contrary to state policy does not constitute “state action” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983?

2. Did the Sixth Circuit err in holding, contrary to decisions of other circuits and the Michigan Supreme Court, that an arrest by a private party constitutes state action? In the event the Court determines not to review the court of appeals’ state action holding, the case presents a further
question:

3. Should this case be held pending the disposition of No. 05-1256, Philip Morris USA v. Williams?

Tom is counsel of record, and Rosalind Rochkind and Megan Cavanagh of Garan, Lucow & Miller are with him on the brief. The matter has been distributed for Conference on September 25.