All three defendants asserted that Baird’s complaint also failed to establish a violation of constitutional rights. Nessel, in particular, pointed out that Baird’s claim that he was denied a preliminary examination does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation, citing Michigan case law that established no such right was guaranteed under state law.
Baird’s counsel declined to comment Monday. The defendants’ counsel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Baird is represented by Michael B. Rizik Jr. of Rizik & Rizik PC, Michael W. Edmunds of Gault Davison PC, and Nancy A. Temple of Katten & Temple LLP. Nessel is represented by Kyla L. Barranco and Mark E. Donnelly of the Michigan Department of the Attorney General. Hammoud and Worthy are represented by Joshua S. Smith and Kristin M. Southerland of the Michigan Department of the Attorney General.
The case is Richard L. Baird v. Dana M. Nessel et al., case number 2:24-cv-11205, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
