Price v. Lucas et al
Filing
179
Opinion and Order. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Remaining Claims (Related doc # 147 ) is granted. Judgment is granted for Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 3/7/2014. (H,CM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
HERMAN P. PRICE, ET AL.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
LEE LUCAS, ET AL.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.1:09CV118
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A.
BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Remaining Claims
against Richland County, Larry Faith, Matt Mayer, Charles Metcalf and J. Steven
Sheldon (ECF # 147). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion.
The Court previously determined that the above Defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims. The Court determined that:
the officers acted reasonably since there was probable cause to support an arrest and
prosecution of Price; Price lacked standing because he could not show an injury-in-fact,
because at the time of his alleged unlawful arrest and incarceration he was a fugitive from
justice living under a false identity; Plaintiff could not show proximate cause because,
but for his illegal flight from a seven year sentence in Michigan, he would have been
arrested and incarcerated the entire time he was allegedly unlawfully incarcerated.
Having granted qualified immunity to the individual Defendants and having found lack
of standing and proximate cause, the Court issued a show cause order why Plaintiffs’
state law claims should not be dismissed as well. The parties have briefed the issue and it
is now before the Court.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges state law claims for False Arrest, Malicious
Prosecution, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress. To prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution under Ohio law a
Plaintiff must demonstrate the following: (1) malicious institution of prior proceedings
against the plaintiff; (2) lack of probable cause for the filing of the prior lawsuit; (3)
termination of the prior proceedings in plaintiff's favor; and (4) seizure of plaintiff's
person or property during the course of the prior proceedings. Fuller v. Cuyahoga
Metropolitan Housing Authority, 334 Fed.Appx. 732, 737, (6th Cir. 2009) citing Robb v.
Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 264 (1996).
To prevail on a claim for false arrest under Ohio law the plaintiff must
demonstrate: “(1) the intentional detention of the person and (2) the unlawfulness of the
detention.”Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 315 (6th Cir. 2005) quoting
Hodges v. Meijer, Inc., 129 Ohio App.3d 318, 717 N.E.2d 806, 809 (1998). “Thus, an
arrest based on probable cause is a lawful detention and, thereby, serves to defeat a false
arrest/imprisonment claim.” Radvansky at 315.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s conduct, acts and omissions constitute
intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
To prevail on a claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Ohio
law a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that the actor either intended to cause emotional
distress or knew or should have known that the actions taken would result in severe
emotional distress; (2) that the actor's conduct was extreme and outrageous, that it went
2
beyond all possible bounds of decency and that is can be considered as utterly intolerable
in a civilized community; (3) that the actor's actions were the proximate cause of the
plaintiff's psychic injury; and (4) that the mental anguish suffered by plaintiff is serious
and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure. Burr v. Burns 439
F.Supp.2d 779, 791 (S.D.Ohio,2006). “Under Ohio law, a cause of action for intentional
infliction of emotional distress may lie only where defendant’s conduct is ‘extreme and
outrageous’ in that it goes ‘beyond all possible bounds of decency,’ is ‘atrocious,’ and is
‘utterly intolerable in a civilized community’; conduct that is merely malicious,
aggravated, or intentional or that entails an intent that is tortious or criminal is
insufficient to render it actionable.” Abbot, 348 F. 3d at 545 (citing Yeager v. Local
Union 20, 6 Ohio St. 3d 369, 453 (1983)).
In Ohio, to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must
either sustain a physical impact as the result of the defendant’s negligent conduct or be
within the “zone of danger”, i.e., in immediate risk of physical harm. Dobran v.
Franciscan Medical Center, 102 Ohio St. 3d 54, 58 (2004).
The Court holds Plaintiffs cannot maintain their state law claims for the same
reasons Plaintiff Hermann Price could not maintain his §1983 claims. First, Price lacks
standing to sue due to his inability to show an injury in fact. “To have standing, the
plaintiff must demonstrate an ‘injury in fact,’ which requires a showing that the party has
suffered or will suffer a specific injury.” Camp St. Mary's Assn. of W. Ohio Conference of
the United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Otterbein Homes 176 Ohio App.3d 54, 66 (Ohio
App. 3 Dist.,2008). “Furthermore, the injury must be traceable to the challenged action,
3
and the injury must likely be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id.
Price was a wanted fugitive, having fled sentencing in Michigan where he had
pled, waived certain constitutional rights and agreed to a seven year term of incarceration
that encompassed the entire time he was arrested and incarcerated in the Mansfield
investigation. But for his illegal assumption of a false identity, he would have been
arrested and incarcerated. Therefore, any injury arising from his arrest and incarceration
in the Mansfield investigation is not recoverable simply because he should have been
arrested and incarcerated by the terms of his plea which incorporated his waiver of
certain constitutional rights.
The Court also determined he could not show his injuries, arising from his arrest
and incarceration, were proximately caused by Defendants wrongful actions because, but
for his own illegal conduct, he was subject to immediate arrest and incarceration.
Furthermore, the Court determined Price could not prevail on his §1983 claims
because the Defendants’ actions were reasonable since there was probable cause toarrest
and prosecute Plaintiff. Since probable cause is a defense to false arrest and malicious
prosecution under Ohio law, these claims fail as a matter of law. Lastly, because the
Court found the Defendants’ actions reasonable on Price’s §1983 claims, these same acts
cannot be the basis for an intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Therefore, for these same reasons, Plaintiffs’ state law claims fail as a matter of
law as well and are dismissed with prejudice. Judgment is granted for Defendants and
against Plaintiffs on all Plaintiffs’ remaining claims in the above captioned case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
s/ Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Dated: March 7, 2014
5
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?