University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Tesmer v. Granholm PD-MI-0002
Docket / Court 00-10082 ( E.D. Mich. )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Indigent Defense
Case Summary
In 1994, the Michigan State Constitution was amended to provide that a defendant who pled guilty would be allowed to appeal only by leave of court and not by right or as a matter of course. Following the amendment, some state judges engaged in the practice of denying the appointment of appellate ... read more >
In 1994, the Michigan State Constitution was amended to provide that a defendant who pled guilty would be allowed to appeal only by leave of court and not by right or as a matter of course. Following the amendment, some state judges engaged in the practice of denying the appointment of appellate counsel to indigent defendants who pled guilty. In 2000, the Legislature codified this practice by passing a statute which prohibited (with certain mandatory and permissive exceptions) the appointment of appellate counsel for indigent defendants who pled guilty. This statute was scheduled to go into effect on April 1, 2000.

On March 2, 2000, Plaintiffs filed this §1983 suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in order to challenge the constitutionality of the appointment procedure codified by the statute. The suit was filed against the state attorney general and three state judges. Plaintiffs included two attorneys and three indigent criminal defendants who had been denied appellate counsel after entering guilty pleas. Plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan, claimed that the appointment procedure was violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the practice and the statute.

On March 23, 2000, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2000, one day before the statute was set to go into effect, the District Court (Judge Victoria A. Roberts) issued an order denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and declaring the challenged appointment practice and statute unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Tesmer v. Granholm, 114 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D Mich. 2000). The District Court did not, however, grant Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that §1983 did not permit injunctive relief against judicial officers unless the officers had violated a declaratory decree. Tesmer v. Granholm, 114 F. Supp. 2d 603, 605 (E.D. Mich. 2000).

On May 9, 2000, Plaintiffs filed another motion for injunctive relief, this time arguing that state court judges had failed to abide by the District Court's March 31 declaratory decree. Also, by motion of March 30, 2000, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class of circuit court judges as defendants.

On June 30, 2000, the District Court (Judge Roberts) granted Plaintiffs motion for an injunction, stating that such injunction was necessary to enforce of its prior declaratory Order. The Court thereby enjoined Michigan state judges from denying appellate counsel to indigents who pleaded guilty. Tesmer v. Kowalski, 114 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Mich. 2000). The District Court denied, however, Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a defendant class on grounds that such certification would constitute expansion, and not mere enforcement, of its prior Order. Tesmer v. Kowalski, 114 F. Supp. 2d 622, 629 (E.D Mich. 2000).

On April 10, 2000, Defendants filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 2, 2002, a panel of the Sixth Circuit (Judges Alice M. Batchelder, Alan E. Norris, and Eugene E. Siler, Jr.) issued an order reversing the District Court. Tesmer v. Granholm, 295 F. 3d 536 (6th Cir. 2002). The panel first held that Younger abstention barred suit by the indigent-plaintiffs but that the attorney-plaintiffs had third-party standing to assert the rights of the indigents. In turning to the merits of the suit, however, the panel held that the statute was constitutional.

On July 10, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The plaintiffs' petition was granted by the Sixth Circuit on September 20, 2002. Tesmer v. Granholm, 307 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2002). On June 17, 2003, the en banc court issued an opinion reversing the panel decision. Tesmer v. Granholm, 333 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2003). The en banc court agreed with the panel that the attorney-plaintiffs had standing, but concluded that reversal was nevertheless appropriate because the statute was, in fact, unconstitutional. Tesmer v. Granholm, 333 F.3d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 2003).

On January 20, 2004, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Kowalski v. Tesmer, 540 U.S. 1148 (2004). On December 13, 2004, the Supreme Court reversed the en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit. Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004). The Court resolved the matter by concluding that the attorney-plaintiffs lacked standing and, therefore, did not reach the question of whether the practice and statute were constitutional.

On April 21, 2005, the suit was finally dismissed.

Vidhya Reddy - 02/12/2008

compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) State of Michigan
Plaintiff Description Prison inmates claiming alleging violation of their rights to due process and equal protection and violation in denying indigents the appointment of counsel to prepare original appeals from their plea-based convictions
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filing Year 2000
Case Closing Year 2005
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Securing Reasonable Caseloads: Ethics and Law in Public Defense
Date: 2011
By: Norman Lefstein (Indiana University--Indianapolis Faculty)
Citation: (ABA 2011)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel.
Date: Apr. 14, 2009
By: National Right to Counsel Committee (The Constitution Project)
Citation: National Right to Counsel Committee, Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel (2009)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  The Third Generation of Indigent Defense Litigation
New York University Review of Law and Social Change
Date: 2009
By: Cara Drinan (Columbus School of Law, Catholic University Faculty)
Citation: 33 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 427 (2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Indigent Defense Reform: The Role of Systemic Litigation in Operationalizing the Gideon Right to Counsel
Date: May 7, 2007
By: Vidhya K. Reddy (Washington University in St. Louis Law Student)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  The Oyez Project, Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004).
Date: Dec. 13, 2004
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

1:00-cv-10082-DML (E.D. Mich.)
PD-MI-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/12/2005
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
District Court Opinion and Order [Entering Declaratory Judgment] (114 F.Supp.2d 603) (E.D. Mich.)
PD-MI-0002-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/31/2000
Source: Google Scholar
District Court Opinion and Order Granting Injunction and Denying Class Certification (114 F.Supp.2d 622) (E.D. Mich.)
PD-MI-0002-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/30/2000
Source: Google Scholar
Opinion of Sixth Circuit Panel [Reversing District Court] (295 F.3d 536)
PD-MI-0002-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/02/2002
Source: Google Scholar
Plaintiffs' Petition for Sixth Circuit Rehearing En Banc
PD-MI-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/10/2002
Order of Sixth Circuit Granting Rehearing En Banc (307 F.3d 459)
PD-MI-0002-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/20/2002
Sixth Circuit En Banc Opinion Reversing Sixth Circuit Panel (333 F.3d 683)
PD-MI-0002-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 06/17/2003
Source: Google Scholar
Untitled (540 U.S. 1148)
PD-MI-0002-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/20/2004
Source: Westlaw
Opinion of the US Supreme Court [Reversing Sixth Circuit] (543 U.S. 125)
PD-MI-0002-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 12/13/2004
Source: Westlaw
Judges Batchelder, Alice Moore (Sixth Circuit, N.D. Ohio)
PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Boggs, Danny Julian (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
Clay, Eric L. (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Cole, Ransey Guy Jr. (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Daughtrey, Martha Craig (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Gibbons, Julia Smith (Sixth Circuit, W.D. Tenn.)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Gilman, Ronald Lee (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (SCOTUS, Ninth Circuit)
Lawson, David M. (E.D. Mich.)
Martin, Boyce Ficklen Jr. (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Moore, Karen Nelson (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0006
Norris, Alan Eugene (Sixth Circuit)
PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-0005
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS)
Rehnquist, William Hubbs (SCOTUS)
Roberts, Victoria A. (E.D. Mich.)
PD-MI-0002-0002 | PD-MI-0002-0003
Rogers, John M. (Sixth Circuit)
Scalia, Antonin (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
Siler, Eugene Edward Jr. (Sixth Circuit, E.D. Ky., W.D. Ky.)
PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-0005
Souter, David Hackett (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
Stevens, John Paul (SCOTUS, Seventh Circuit)
Thomas, Clarence (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS)
Plaintiff's Lawyers Dagher-Margosian, Jeanice (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0001 | PD-MI-0002-0002 | PD-MI-0002-0003 | PD-MI-0002-9000
Granzotto, Mark (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0001 | PD-MI-0002-0002 | PD-MI-0002-0003 | PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0008 | PD-MI-0002-9000
Moran, David A. (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0001 | PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0008
Moss, Kary L. (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0001 | PD-MI-0002-0002 | PD-MI-0002-0003 | PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0008 | PD-MI-0002-9000
Shapiro, Steven R. (New York)
Steinberg, Michael J. (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0008
Defendant's Lawyers Bregman, Judy E. (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-0005 | PD-MI-0002-0008
Casey, Thomas L. (Michigan)
Cox, Michael A. (Michigan)
Nelson, Margaret A. (Michigan)
Wheeker, Thomas R. (Michigan)
PD-MI-0002-0002 | PD-MI-0002-0003 | PD-MI-0002-0004 | PD-MI-0002-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -