Michigan Lawyer – Constitutional Claims, Criminal Law, the Michigan Veterans Preference Act, Constitutional Rights Guaranteed to Public Employees and appeals.
My areas of practice include a focus on constitutional rights in a variety of contexts, criminal law, appellate law, the constitutional rights of government employees and the Michigan Veterans Preference Act. I established this website to provide some basic information about my areas of practice, education, bar admissions and some cases I have handled. I seek to keep this web page simple and to the point. This website is designed to be an aid for helping persons considering my legal services to make an educated choice. My office is located at 20257 Ecorse, #5E, Taylor, MI 48180. I may be contacted at (313) 383-3880 and tim_holloway@att.net. In-person consultations by appointment only. A longer list of cases may also be found at https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/744959/legal_cases
Also, I believe it is important to point out the following right from the start. You should be aware of time limitations regarding mandatory notices and statutes of limitations that may be very short, especially in suits involving the government. Failure to properly comply with these time limits may preclude you from asserting claims. As an example of an extremely short time limit, there is a 30-day time limit for filing a written protest for asserting rights under the Michigan Veterans Preference Act, M.C.L. 35.402. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-35-402 This a requirement distinct from the statute of limitations (which is much longer). There are also various time limits related to obtaining relief from criminal convictions, including a statute of limitations for filing a petiton for habeas corpus in federal court. Issues for time limits in these criminal matters can be very complex and are beyond the scope of this website. For examples regarding about some, but definitely not all, of the time limits related to civil suits involving the government, see the last entry at the bottom of this webpage. However, a full understanding of these time limits may be complex and requires consultation with an attorney.
Noteworthy Public Employee Cases:
Flake v. City of Detroit, et al, Wayne County Circuit Court #93-315698 — this matter involved the dismissal of a Detroit police officer for refusing to comply with a drug urine test that required a strip search. Flake alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment and Due Process. After years of litigation and two rounds of proceedings in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, the matter was remanded to the trial court where an order for reinstatement was entered, along with orders for back pay, interest and attorney fees for a total of over $790,000.
Rudolph v. Lloyd, et al, U.S. District Court, E.D. of Mich. #2:17-cv-10953 – this matter involved the dismissal of a custodian for Wayne State University. The U.S. District Court found a violation of the Michigan Veterans Preference Act (MVPA), M.C.L. 35.402, and that the Due Process Clause provided protections under the U.S. Constitution for the just-cause employment (a property interest) that is created by the MVPA. After the District Court’s finding, an arbitrator was selected to conduct the Due Process hearing under the criteria of the Act. The arbitrator found that Rudolph was dismissed in violation of the criteria of the Act. Rudolph was then reinstated by order of the U.S. District Court, an order which triggered a right to back pay. The defendants then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, claiming the District Court’s orders were wrong. After the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, the parties agreed to settlements regarding the amount of Rudolph’s back pay and other damages. Wayne State was also required to pay a contribution to Rudolph’s retirement plan based on the back pay amount. The District Court also awarded attorney fees. The total amount of the defendants’ liability was for more than $325,000. Prior to the defendants losing the appeal, the defendants’ highest settlement offer was for a total of $25,000 and would have precluded Rudolph from being reinstated. This suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, with the issues under the constitution presenting federal questions. Bringing the suit under this statute allowed Rudolph to claim more damages than if the suit had only alleged a violation of the Michigan Veterans Preference Act. 42 U.S.C. 1988 also allowed Rudolph to obtain an award for an hourly attorney fee amount, a remedy available only because there was a violation of federal law. The Michigan Veterans Preference Act, if alleged as the basis for suit without also alleging a violation of federal law, does not provide for an award of attorney fees.
Noteworthy and Very Significant Criminal Appellate Decisions:
People v. Pinkney, 501 Mich. 259; 912 N.W.2d 535 (2018) — Pinkney was tried and convicted under a statute that the Michigan Supreme Court held to proscribe no crime whatsoever. As strange as this sounds, this is true. The charge involved a claim that he changed dates on recall petitions that sought to recall a local politician. Also, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered oral argument on Pinkney’s claims, under the First Amendment, Due Process and court rules, that the prosecutor used Pinkney’s social and political activity to convict Pinkney. However, this issue was rendered moot when the Michigan Supreme Court held Pinkney was never actually convicted of a crime. Pinkney and Holloway contend that the prosecutor used this First Amendment activity, which was unpopular with some in the county of conviction (but popular with others), to offset the prosecution’s lack of any direct evidence that Pinkney actually changed any dates on the recall petitions. Oral argument in the Michigan Supreme Court on this matter may be viewed on YouTube at this address. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEHqwzUKvrA
United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004) — this matter involved the violation of Cromer’s right to confront and cross-examine a witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The alleged out-of-court statements of an unnamed informant were admitted against Cromer. This informant never appeared in court. A police officer testified regarding the informant’s out-of-court statements. A professor at the University of Michigan Law School believed this was one of the most important cases on the Confrontation Clause at the time as indicated in the professor’s blog post which can be found at this web address. https://confrontationright.blogspot.com/2004/12/united-states-v-cromer-important-case.html
Noteworthy Cases Appearing on the National Registry of Exonerations:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx
People v. Thomas Sawyer, Hillsdale County Michigan – this matter involved convictions of criminal sexual conduct (rape). More than 10 years after Sawyer was convicted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus on the Hillsdale convictions based on the government’s failure to disclose pre-trial testing of semen stains on the complainant’s clothing. The police had in fact tested the semen against Sawyer’s blood type and found that it did not match his blood type, without disclosing this testing prior to trial. The testing was discovered by a Freedom of Information Act request that was made after the convictions. The Sixth Circuit vacated the Hillsdale convictions. Sawyer v. Hofbauer, 299 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2002). Sawyer was not retried on these charges. However, Sawyer remains incarcerated on charges from another county.
People v. Donald Heistand, Otsego County, Michigan – this matter involved the death of an oil field worker in Otsego County in 1986. In 1989, Heistand pleaded no contest to being an accessary-after-the-fact to murder. Heistand maintained his innocence throughout the process. Extensive problems with Heistand’s conviction and the convictions of co-defendants were discovered during litigation by two of the co-defendants, Walter “Terry” Moore and Mark Canter. Heistand was able to withdraw his no contest plea in 2001. This ended the criminal case for Heistand. This entire matter received extensive coverage in a series of articles in the Detroit News and was the subject of a book, by Mardi Link, Wicked Takes the Witness Stand: A Tale of Murder and Twisted Deceit in Northern Michigan (2014) (Univ. of Mich. Regional, 2014).
Education:
J.D., cum laude, Wayne State University Law School, 1989
B.A., with honor, Michigan State University, 1985
Bar Admissions:
Michigan State Bar, allowing practice in all trial-level and appellate courts in Michigan; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th and 7th Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Strict Compliance with Notice Statutes and with Statutes of Limitations for Civil Cases
With many of the areas of law in which I practice, there are time limits that take two distinct forms: (a) notices to government entities or government officers; and (b) statutes of limitations. Notices to government entities or officers involve notices that must be given, in a proper manner and within a deadline, in order to later be able to proceed with a lawsuit. These notice statutes involve requirements that must be satisfied in addition to compliance with the statute of limitations. Compliance with statutes of limitations involve the actual filing of the lawsuit and proper service of a summons, along with the lawsuit. There are a number of instances where the time limits can be very short for complying with the notice requirements and/or for complying with the statute of limitations.
I feel it is important to point this out, especially in the context of civil suits involving the government, as some of the time limits are very short and, if there is a failure to properly and strictly comply with the time limits, one’s civil suit may be precluded in its entirety — even if the claims are otherwise valid. For example, the plain language of the Michigan Veterans Preference Act, requires veterans entitled to the protections of that Act to “file a written protest” within 30 days. The protest must be filed with certain persons designated under the Act or “the veteran shall be deemed to have waived the benefits and privileges” of the Act. Language regarding this 30-day time limit is contained in M.C.L. 35.402. Note that this notice provision from M.C.L. 35.402 is separate from a statute of limitations that governs the filing of a lawsuit in court.
If a person with a potential claim is still within any time limit stated by a statute or court rule, that person should assume it is necessary to strictly and properly comply with the notice and the statute of limitations filing requirements within the stated time periods. The plain language of the time limit in a statute will often be the last word on the subject. However, this is not always true. You may be able to make arguments as to why the time period is longer. However, the time limit may actually be shorter than you might be led to believe from the langauge of the statute. In some instances, the time period starts to run before you may realize based on case law that interprets when the time limit begins to run (for example, see the summaries of some case law below). As a bottom line, it is better to be safe than sorry. Make every effort to ensure you are timely. It is best to comply with a time limit well before it appears that it is about to expire.
Again, some of the time limits are very short. Without attempting to catalog all of the shorter time limits that are applicable to claims that may involve the government, the following statutes are examples involving time limits that are short and which often may involve complex issues. M.C.L. 600.6431 (requiring specific steps for proper notice for “claim(s) against this state or any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies” within either one (1) year or six (6) months, depending on the nature of the claim — a provision with which Michigan courts have been very strict in interpreting). For certain types of claims against the state (and sometimes against local governments), there are statutes with time limits that are even shorter than six (6) months. The 30-day requirement under the Michigan Veterans Preference Act was already noted on this website. Another example is a statute that requires the filing of suit (not just notice of the claims), within 90 days. M.C.L. 15.363 (90-day statute of limitations for filing lawsuit for violations of the Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act). These are just two (2) examples of time limits shorter than six (6) months. There are others.
There may also be complex issues as to when the time period begins to run. There are many issues related to time limitations which may either shorten or lengthen the time period which one may otherwise assume to apply. The following cases provide just two (2) examples. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477; 114 S. Ct. 2364; 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) (for many, but not all, claims under the U.S. Constitution that may be related to a wrongful conviction, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the wrongful conviction is vacated); Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250; 101 S. Ct. 498; 66 L. Ed. 2d 431 (1980) (time limit for bringing claim for termination of employment started to run when decision to terminate was made and communicated to the employee even though the actual termination of employment occurred much later).
Finally, the above information regarding time limits is aimed at alerting the reader to the serious nature of time limits. However, the above information is, by no means, a complete explanation of all the issues related to time limits for notices and/or statutes of limitations. It is important to consult an attorney regarding these time limits.