No. 20-6852

Cindy Bauer, fka Cindy Gamrat v. Edward McBroom, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-interpretation due-process fair-and-just-treatment fair-treatment legislative-immunity legislative-investigations-and-hearings pleading-standard pleading-standards sixth-circuit
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-03-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Michigan's Article | § 17 affords Michigan citizens the protections of fair-and-just-treatment during legislative-investigations-and-hearings

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Article | § 17 of Michigan’s Constitution states in part, The right of all individuals, firms, and corporations, and voluntary associations to fair and just treatment in the course of : legislative and executive investigations and hearings shall not be infringed. Courts have relied upon Whitener v. McWatters and_Bogan v. Scott-Harris to assert broad immunity for legislative activities, however, immunity for violations of fair and just treatment during Michigan legislative investigations and hearings would render the protections of Article | § 17 meaningless. Disenfranchisement of these protections has impacted 10 million citizens. The question whether Article | § 17 affords Michigan citizens the protections of fair and just treatment during legislative investigations and hearings, has not yet been : addressed by the Courts. The questions presented are: . 1. Whether Michigan’s Article | § 17 applies to legislative investigations and hearings as written, affording Michigan citizens the protections of fair and just treatment. If so, what are the standards of fair and just treatment during legislative investigations and , hearings? 2. Whether a heightened pleading bar set by the Sixth Circuit's affirmation of the District Court’s judgement granting motions to dismiss based on Rule 12(b6)(6) and denial of motion to file a second amended complaint, is proper for Constitutional claims of violations of due process protections and fair and just treatment.

Docket Entries

2021-03-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-01-26
Waiver of right of respondents Keith Allard and Benjamin Graham to respond filed.
2021-01-19
Waiver of right of respondents Brock Swartzle and Norm Saari to respond filed.
2021-01-14
Waiver of right of respondents Edward McBroom, Tim Bowlin, Hassan Beydoun, and Kevin Cotter to respond filed.
2020-12-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 12, 2021)

Attorneys

Brock Swartzle and Norm Saari
Cameron J. EvansEvans Law Group, PC, Respondent
Cameron J. EvansEvans Law Group, PC, Respondent
Cindy Bauer
Cindy Bauer — Petitioner
Cindy Bauer — Petitioner
Edward McBroom, Tim Bowlin, Hassan Beydoun, and Kevin Cotter
Gary P. GordonDykema Gossett, PLLC, Respondent
Gary P. GordonDykema Gossett, PLLC, Respondent
Keith Allard and Benjamin Graham
Sarah M. Riley HowardPinsky, Smith, Fayette & Kennedy, LLP, Respondent
Sarah M. Riley HowardPinsky, Smith, Fayette & Kennedy, LLP, Respondent