Case ID: f-appx_230/html/0570-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darita STERLING-WARD, Next Friend of Sharonda Sterling, a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward TUJAKA; Michael Almeranti; Lisa Monticciolo, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 06-1505.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    July 25, 2007.
    
      BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Darita Sterling-Ward, next friend of Sharonda Sterling, sued Defendants Edward Tujaka, Michael Almeranti, and Lisa Monticciolo, police officers with the City of Grosse Pointe (collectively “Defendants”), alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law based on Defendants’ arrest of Sharonda for disorderly conduct. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants and denied summary judgment to Plaintiff.

On appeal, Plaintiff claims that the district court incorrectly ruled as a matter of law that Defendants’ entries into Plaintiffs home were consensual, and that Defendants were otherwise entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs § 1983 claim based on unlawful entry. Plaintiff also asserts that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs § 1983 claim based on unlawful arrest on the grounds that Defendants had probable cause to arrest Sharonda for disorderly disturbance under the City of Grosse Pointe’s Code of Ordinances. Third, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiffs state law tort claims of false arrest/imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and supervisory liability.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having reviewed the parties’ briefs and applicable law, we find that we have little to add to the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion dated February 14, 2006. Plaintiff cannot now create a genuine issue of fact for trial because her counsel conceded at oral argument in the district court that Sharonda did not ask the officers to leave during the first visit and conceded that she was not contesting the first entry. Thus, the district court’s holding that Defendants’ first entry was based on both Nicole Saleh’s apparent authority and Sharonda’s implied consent remains valid. That ruling also supports the district court’s conclusion that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as to the second entry, given the apparent authority and implied consent from Saleh and Sharonda provided Defendants the first time they entered the home. Plaintiffs other contentions are without merit for the reasons stated by the district court.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.