Clarence Erwin Copeland v. Mark MacHulis James Stephens

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “a procedural due process claim will not be stated unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that his available state remedies are inadequate to redress the wrong”
• explaining that “a procedural due process claim will not be stated unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that his available state remedies are inadequate to redress the wrong”
• acknowledging Michigan law and regulation re process for deprivation of detainees’ property as adequate state law remedies
• affirming summary judgment where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendant was “personally involved” in the alleged constitutional violations
• first citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375–76 (1976), then citing Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984)
• “[M]ere disparate impact is insufficient to demonstrate [at summary judgment] an equal protection violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).