LEDURA WATKINS v. ROBERT H. HEALY, in his individual capacity - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jan 28, 2021

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Davidde A. Stella, WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Wolfgang Mueller, MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Davidde A. Stella, WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Wolfgang Mueller, MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, GILMAN, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In 1976, 19-year-old Ledura Watkins was convicted of the murder of Yvette Ingram and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The State of Michigan’s case against Watkins hinged on a begrudged schoolfellow and a single hair: Watkins’s 20-year-old high school classmate Travis Herndon testified that he and Watkins robbed and murdered Ingram together, and Detroit Police Department Evidence Technician Ronald Badaczewski testified that a hair found on Ingram’s clothing matched a hair sample of Watkins. After Watkins’s conviction, Herndon repeatedly recanted. In sworn affidavits, letters, and testimony, Herndon continuously attested that Wayne County Prosecutor Robert H. Healy and Detective Neil Schwartz threatened to charge him with Ingram’s murder and another unrelated murder if Herndon did not tape a statement that implicated Watkins and testify to that effect at Watkins’s trial. Yet Watkins’s efforts to overturn his conviction were of no avail for four decades. In January 2017, Watkins presented to the state trial court new evidence that Badaczewski’s hair analysis methods were seriously flawed. Based on this new evidence, the state trial court dismissed the case against Watkins without prejudice.

In December 2017, Watkins filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Healy, the estate of Schwartz, Badaczewski, and the City of Detroit. Healy responded with a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The district court denied Healy’s motion, and this appeal ensued. Although we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider most of Healy’s arguments, we hold that Healy is not entitled to absolute immunity for his alleged actions and that Healy has forfeited the issue of qualified immunity at this stage of the suit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: