Knecht v. Cincinnati City of et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER overruling 35 Supplemental Report and Recommendation; denying 17 Defendant City of Cincinnati's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint 37 , consistent with this Order. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 9/4/2014. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER KNECHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:12-CV-00763

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Supplemental Report and Recommendation (doc. 35), Plaintiff’s
Objection and Motion for Leave to File Limited Amended Complaint
(doc. 37), the City’s Response and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to File Amended Complaint (doc. 38), and Plaintiff’s
Reply (doc. 39).

For the reasons indicated herein, the Court

declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and DENIES the City’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 17); it further
GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (doc. 37).
I.

Background
More than twenty-five years ago Plaintiff entered guilty

pleas

to

one

count

of

aggravated

aggravated theft (doc. 35).

burglary

and

one

count

of

Twenty years later, when applying for

work, he obtained a copy of his background report (Id.).

The

report indicated he had been convicted of four felonies (Id.).
Plaintiff inquired with the Clerk of Courts of Hamilton County,

Ohio, who corrected the information (Id.).

A year later, in 2008,

Plaintiff discovered that he was listed on the Ohio Adult Parole
Authority website, even though he had been off parole for five
years (Id.).

Plaintiff contacted the Parole Authority, which

corrected the situation (Id.).
Four years later, in 2012, Plaintiff obtained a copy of
his

conviction

record

transcript

(Id.).

This

transcript

inaccurately listed that he was convicted of three felonies and
that he inflicted physical harm on his victims–-which he did not
(Id.).

Plaintiff contends that because of these inaccuracies, he

was not hired, was refused a lease agreement for an apartment, was
denied social service benefits, and is subjected to heightened
police interaction (Id.).
Plaintiff’s criminal convictions are maintained by the
Regional Crime Information Center, which is maintained by the City
through its Enterprise Technology Solutions Office (doc. 17).
Individual Defendant Margo Springs is the chief information officer
at such office (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that because the City

maintains the database that contains his criminal history, and his
history has been reported incorrectly, the City and Springs have
breached a duty to accurately report his history (Id.).
Plaintiff originally brought this pro se action under
state and federal law alleging civil rights violations by the City
of Cincinnati and Springs (doc. 14).

In his current briefing,

Plaintiff appears to abandon any claim premised on state law, and
2

seeks through a motion to amend to convert all of his claims to
denial of federal due process (docs. 37, 39).
The

Magistrate

Judge

initially

issued

a

Report

and

Recommendation that the Court grant the City’s motion to dismiss
(doc. 21), after which the Court remanded the matter for further
consideration of Plaintiff’s due process claim (doc. 26).

Upon

remand, the Magistrate Judge once again recommended that the Court
grant the City’s motion and dismiss this matter (doc. 35).

The

parties have filed their responses (docs. 37, 38, 39) such that
this matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
As an initial matter, Plaintiff seeks to convert the

counts of his Complaint previously construed under state law to
claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se, already added a fourth count alleging a federal
due process violation. The previous counts merely elaborate on his
allegations and refer to violation of “well-established law.”
Plaintiff seeks to replace the words “well-established law,” with
“the Fourteenth Amendment” (doc. 37).

Defendants oppose such

amendment (doc. 38).
The United States Supreme Court has held that motions for
leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted unless the
motions are brought in bad faith or the proposed amendments would
cause undue delay, be futile, or unfairly prejudice the opposing
parties.

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Moore
3

v. City of Paducah, 790 F.2d 557, 561 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Tefft
v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 1982)).

Therefore,

taking into consideration the liberal standard of Fed. R. Civ. P.
15, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to file Amended Complaint
should be granted.

No undue prejudice accrues to Defendants, who

in their own briefing contend “Plaintiff’s requested amendments
would do nothing to alter the legal analysis in this case” (doc.
38).

The

Plaintiff

Court
can

agrees.

establish

This

case

violation

revolves
of

around

liberty

whether

interests.

Plaintiff’s allegations in Counts One through Three merely inform
the claim in Count Four, for violation of due process rights.

As

such, the Court finds that justice requires that Plaintiff’s
“limited”

motion

be

granted,

and

this

matter

be

completely

construed as one brought under federal law.
III.

Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim
The Magistrate Judge stated that in order to establish a

due process claim, Plaintiff must allege facts establishing three
elements:

1)

a

constitutionally

protected

interest;

2)

a

deprivation of that interest within the meaning of the due process
clause;

and

3)

the

government

did

not

afford

him

adequate

procedural rights prior to depriving him of his protected interest
(doc. 35, citing Med. Corp., Inc. v. City of Lima, et al., 296 F.3d
404, 409 (6th Cir. 2002)).

The Magistrate Judge’s analysis then

focused on the first prong, stating, “[i]n order for Plaintiff to
show a property interest in accurate criminal records, he must
4

allege facts that show he has a legitimate claim of entitlement to
it, not just a unilateral expectation of it” (Id. citing Regents v.
Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)).

She concluded, “Plaintiff has

failed

that

to

cite

any

case

law

clearly

establishes

a

constitutional property or liberty right to accurate criminal
records” (Id.).
Plaintiff responded, citing the authorities Pruett v.
Levi, 622 F.2d 256 (6th Cir. 1980), and Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693,
712-13 (1976), contending a claim of constitutional injury can
indeed

arise

from

a

state

information (doc. 37).

entity’s

dissemination

of

false

Plaintiff further proffers a copy of his

record transcript, which incorrectly classifies his aggravated
burglary conviction with “INFLCT HARM” (doc. 12).

Plaintiff

indicates

O.R.C.

that

Ohio’s

aggravated

burglary

statute,

§

2911.11, was amended in 1996, more than a decade after his offense,
to include the infliction or attempt of physical harm on another
(Id.).

He

alleges

that

Defendants

purposefully

entered

the

information to alter his record to reflect that he inflicted
physical harm, and then disseminated such false information, along
with an extra aggravated burglary charge (Id.). In his view, he is
entitled to discovery to determine how long such wrong information
was disseminated, which prejudiced his attempts at employment,
housing, and social services (Id.).
The City responded as well.

In the City’s view, under

Pruett, one can only have a claim for dissemination of false
5

records where an inaccuracy is discovered, brought to the attention
of the agency, but the inaccuracy remains un-rectified and is
continually disseminated.

In the City’s view, so long as it takes

“reasonable” measures to safeguard the accuracy of information, it
should not be liable for “accidentally maintain[ing]” inaccurate
records (doc. 38). The City contends that when Plaintiff asked the
City to correct his records on June 6, 2012, by October 5 of the
same year his records were corrected (Id.).

As such, the City

argues Plaintiff has alleged no specific harm accrued to him after
his request for a correction, such that his Complaint should be
dismissed (Id.).
Plaintiff responds that the City’s argument fails to
contemplate the apparent number of years that it disseminated false
information to his detriment (doc. 39). In his view, the fact that
the City ultimately rectified the wrong information should not
clear it of liability (Id.).
IV.

Analysis and Conclusion
Having reviewed this matter, the Court first finds the

briefing of the parties, particularly of pro se Plaintiff, of
exceptional quality.

Despite the argument of the City’s very

capable counsel, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff has pleaded
a

plausible

theory

that

Defendants’

dissemination

of

false

information violated his liberty interests in seeking employment,
housing,

and

social

services.

He

has

alleged

that

he

had

difficulties in pursuing such liberty interests, and it is entirely
6

plausible that the City’s dissemination of the false information
that

his

more

than

twenty-five-year

old

conviction

infliction of harm played a part in such difficulties.

involved
Citizens

should be entitled to second-chances, and government authorities
should not make re-entry to society as a convicted felon more
difficult than it already is.

Plaintiff alleges one property

manager would not rent to him due to the false belief that
Plaintiff had been in prison for harming someone.

As such, the

Court finds Defendants’ dissemination of information was more than
a

mere

“inaccuracy,”

Paul

v.

Davis,

424

U.S.

693,

712-714

(rejecting a claim for harm to reputation cause by dissemination of
inaccurate flyer), but rather, due to the alleged amount of time
involved, such action arose to a violation of liberty interests.
A citizen should be able to expect that government entities will
not disseminate false information about him to the detriment of his
employment and housing opportunities.
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated herein, the Court
declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Report and
Recommendation (doc. 35).

As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff

leave to file an Amended Complaint (doc. 37), consistent with this
Order, and DENIES the City’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 17).
SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 4, 2014

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

7