Rogers et al v. O'Donnell et al
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Madison County dfts' 74 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED; remaining parties shall meet w/in 15 days of date of entry of this order to discuss the settlement of all remaining claims; failing such s ettlement, parties shall contact Mag. Judge Wier directly for purpose of conducting settlement conference w/in 30 days of entry of this order; if unable to settle, parties shall file a joint proposal of new deadlines & case events, including trial, w/in 15 days of such settlement conference. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 05/18/2012. (RJD)cc: COR, TINA GRANT(via US Mail) Modified cc line on 5/18/2012 (RJD).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-373-JBC
JAMES J. ROGERS, et al.,
V.
PLAINTIFFS,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SHERIFF NELSON O=DONNELL, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
***********
Pending before the court is a motion for partial summary judgment by Sheriff
Nelson O’Donnell, individually and in his official capacity as Madison County
Sherriff; the Madison County Sheriff’s Department; Scotty Anderson, individually
and in his official capacity as a Sergeant with the Madison County Sheriff’s
Department; and Steve King, individually and in his official capacity as a Detective
with the Madison County Sheriff’s Department (collectively the “Madison County
defendants”). For reasons explained below, the motion will be granted.
The plaintiffs accuse the Madison County defendants of various federal torts,
including malicious prosecution, abuse of criminal process, violation of privacy
rights, and defamation, related to the investigation and prosecution of alleged
crimes stemming from a 2009 sexual encounter involving the plaintiffs and April
1
McQueen. The plaintiffs were acquitted of all charges, but in the aftermath of the
proceedings plaintiffs Rogers and Murphy were terminated from the Richmond
Police Department and plaintiff Hensley claims to have been forced to resign.
Summary judgment will be granted as to the plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution
claims because they have not alleged any facts consistent with a constitutionally
cognizable deprivation of liberty, which is a prerequisite for such a claim. See Sykes
v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308-309 (6th Cir. 2010). The plaintiffs were not
arrested or incarcerated during the criminal proceedings against them. The Sixth
Circuit has not recognized criminal prosecution as a seizure sufficient to trigger
Constitutional protection. See Fisher v. Dodson, 451 App’x 500, 502 (2011).
Therefore, because the plaintiffs have made no showing that they suffered a
constitutionally recognized deprivation of liberty, their malicious prosecution claim
must fail.
The Sixth Circuit has not specifically determined whether abuse of process is
a cognizable claim pursuant to §1983. Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, Ohio,
412 F.3d 669, 676 (2005). But even if it were, the plaintiffs would still need to
show that they suffered a constitutional deprivation or a deprivation of a right
conferred by federal statute, which they have failed to do. Therefore, this claim
fails as well.
The plaintiffs’ defamation claims under §1983 stem from statements
allegedly made by Sheriff O’Donnell to the Richmond Register newspaper in
2
October 2009. In order to establish that a defamatory statement caused a
constitutional deprivation associated with lost employment, the plaintiffs must
show that the defamatory statement was made in the course of the termination of
the employment by someone with the authority to make the termination decision.
See Hawkins v. R.I. Lottery Comm'n, 238 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2001). Even if Sheriff
O’Donnell’s statements to the Richmond Register were found to be made around
the time of the termination of the plaintiffs’ employment, they still would not
trigger constitutional protection because O’Donnell did not have the power to
terminate the employment of the plaintiffs, as the Richmond Police Department is a
separate entity from the Sheriff’s Department.
As for the conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, the plaintiffs do not
allege any facts consistent with such an allegation, which requires both a
conspiracy and “some class-based discriminatory animus behind the conspirators'
action.” Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City of Springboro, 477 F.3d 807, 832
(6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). The plaintiffs make no allegations of
any class-based discriminatory animus. Therefore, these claims fail as well.
The plaintiffs’ failure-to-supervise and municipal-liability claims under §1983
require an underlying constitutional violation. Because the plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that their constitutional rights were violated by the Madison County
defendants, there can be no liability under a theory of failure to supervise or
municipal liability.
3
Finally, the plaintiffs concede that their claim alleging violations of privacy
rights under §1983 should be dismissed in accordance with Sixth Circuit precedent.
That claim will also be dismissed, leaving the plaintiffs’ state claims against the
Madison County defendants in their individual capacities as the only remaining
claims. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Madison County defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment (R. 74) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
The remaining parties shall meet within 15 days of the date of entry of this
order to discuss the settlement of all remaining claims.
Failing such settlement, the parties shall contact Magistrate Judge Robert
Wier directly for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference within thirty
days of the date of entry of this order (the court having referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Wier for settlement by R.59).
If unable to settle, parties shall file a joint proposal of new deadlines and
case events, including trial, within 15 days of such settlement conference.
Signed on May 18, 2012
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?