NOT RE COM MEN DED FO R F ULL -TEX T P UBL ICA TION F ile N am e: 07a 0434 n. 06 F ile d: Ju ne 21, 200 7 N o. 06- 3452 UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S IX TH C IR C U IT RA CHA EL C OX P lai nti ff- A ppe lla nt ,
v. JAME S DRAKE, OFFI CER, ET AL . , De fendan ts-Appellees

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T A TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR T H E S O U T H E R N DI ST RICT OF OH IO O P I N I O N

Before: G ILMAN and SUT TON, Circuit Judges, and TARNOW, Distric t Judge* ARTHUR J. T ARNOW, D istri ct Judg e. Pl ai nti ff Ra ch ae l Cox br ough t su it in the dis tr ic t c ourt c la im ing that D ef en da nts vio la te d he r Fo urte en th A m en dm ent D ue P ro ce ss r igh ts in conn ec tio n wi th the ir inv olv em en t in an a lle ge d e vic tio n f ro m he r re nte d re sid en ce . T he dis tr ic t cour t det er m ine d that Pl ai nti ff w as not de pr ive d of he r poss es sor

y in te rest inhe r re nte d pr ope rty und er F ourte en th A m en dm en t du e pr oc es s ana ly sis

. A s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d Defe ndants ’ m oti on f or
s u m m ar y ju d g m en tan dd i s m i s s e d t h e c as e. We AF FI RM t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de te rm ina tio n th at

su mm ary

j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te be ca

use P la int if

f w as not de pr ive d of

he r poss es sor

y int er es t i n he r re nte d ho m e by state a ct ion

.Pag e 2 of 13

Fact ual History Since D ecem

ber 1, 2001 , P laintiff Rac hael Cox rented a re sidence located at 4267 Re dm ont A ve nue in the Ci ty of D ee r Park fr om landl or d Be tty Nabo rs . Plaintiff’ s form er husband Jo hnnyCox occasionally stay ed at t he residence w ith her

an d he r son. R ac ha el Co x a dm its that bo th s he a nd Johnn y Co x used c ra ck c oc ai ne at the hou se at le as t a doz en tim es pr ior to the a lle ge d e vic tio n. R ac ha el Co x w oul d give m oney

to John n y C o x s o t h at he could buydrugs for both h er and her
ac qua int an ce s, who a lso use d th e dr ugs at he r hom e. H ow ev er , she de nie s th at she
ev er s ol d d ru gs or t ha t s he ev er p ers on al ly bou gh t cr ack

. O n N ove m

be r 10, 200 3, a ft er

usi ng c ra ck

a nd b ec om in g il l, Ra ch ae l C ox telephoned h er m other asking for help. A fter arriving at the Redm ont residence, her

m oth er c al le d 91 1. S oon the re af te r, Ci ty of D ee r Pa

rk pol ic e of

fi ce rs ar ri ve d at the residence along with an am bulance and m edical personnel. O ffice r Jam es Dr ake w as
one of t he officer s who arr ived at the scene. T he param edics proceeded to transport Ra ch ae l C ox to U niv er sity H ospi ta l f or tr ea tm en t f

or ac oc ai ne ove rd ose . N o arr es ts
we re m ade. T he N ove m

be r 10 in cide nt w as the im pe tus f or Ra ch ae l C ox t o st op u sin g drugs. She began attending Alcoholics Anonym ous m eetings, and found herself a spon sor within the group. De spite her change in lifesty le, Rachae l Cox claim s that the D ee r Park

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, in pa rt ic ular O ff

ic er D rake , be ga n to ha ra ss h er a nd he r acq ua in ta nc es .Pag e 3 of 13

O ff i c e r D r a k e a d m i t s t h a t t h e r e w a s a d e p a rt m e n t a l d e c i s i o n t o “ w a t c h th e hous e, to m ak e sur e tha t... [the Po lic e D ep ar tm en t w as ] aw ar e of w ha t w as goi ng o n in the r es ide nc e. ” T he Ci ty of D ee r Park

P oli ce Ch ief

appr ove d of

the de ci sio n to
w at chRa ch ae l C ox’ s ho use . A cc or din g to O ff ic er D rake , th is was not

the f ir st instance where this m ethod o f s urveillance had been used on a particular re sidence by the Ci ty of D ee r Park

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t. D ur ing the f

ir st w ee k of

D ec em be r 2003 , Offic er

D rake pul le d ov er

Joh nny Co x, w ho w as dri ving R ac ha el Co x’ s c ar , be ca use the li ce nse plate li ght w as not functional. O ffice r D rake asked to search the car, but Joh nny Cox refused. O ffice r D rake in t

ur n r ad ioe d f

or se ar chdog s f

ro m ane ighbor ing c ity

. T he se ar chdog s arri ve d, b ut no th in g i ll eg al was d is co ve red

. On April 1, 2004, Of

ficer Dr ake pulled over Rachae l and John ny Cox in order to arr es t Jo hnny

Co x fo r his fa ilure to p ay the tr af fi c tic ke t he ha d r ec ei ve d f ro m the Decem be r 20 0 3 t r a f

f i c s to p. Offi cer Dra ke ap pr oa ch edth e carwit h h is gu n d rawn and told Johnn y Cox to step out of t he car. Once out of the car, Of ficer Dr ake patted h i m d o w n , f

o u n das ma l l p o c k e tkn i f

e o n h i s p e r s o n a n dp r o c e e d e dt o h a n d c u f f h i m. A ft er co m

pl y in g w iththe of

fi ce rs ’ ins tr

uc tio n to e xit

the c ar , Ra ch ae l C ox ag re e d t o a n o f

f i c e r ’ s r e qu e s t t o s e a r c h h e r c a r . D u r i n g t h e s e a r c h , R a c h a e l Co x claim s that Of

ficer Dr ake rem arked th at s he wa s in a lot of trouble and th at the police ha d an a ppoi ntm en t t o sp eak w ithhe r landl or d a t 3: 00 p

. m . to inf orm he r ab out al l the tr oubl e Ra ch ae l C ox w as c au sin g. L at er that day , Ra ch ae l C ox c al le d O ff ic er D rake a nd r eque ste d a m ee tin g toPag e 4 of 13

dis cu ss the sit

ua tio n. T he y ag re ed to m ee t at the pol ic e sta tio n. D ur ing the m ee tin g, Of ficer Dr ake inform ed Rachae l Cox that a total of 16 separate 911 calls had been placed by her neighbors concerning in cidents at t he residence. Ac cording to Rachael Co x, O ffi cer Drake a lso tol d he r tha t “ he didn’ t w an t pe opl e lik e [h er ] in the ir neighb o rh o o d , t h at [she] needed to leave, and that [she] needed to find a new residence. ” O ffice r D rake a lso m entioned th at he wa s goin g to speak to her landlo rd

an d te ll the landl or d th at he r hous e m igh t be sub j ec t t o a ba te m ent pr oc ed

ur es if Rac ha el Co x was no t ev ic te d. Offi cer Dra ke de ni es m ak in g t he se rem ark s. In res po ns e, Rac ha el Co x t ol d Off ic er Drake th at sh e was cl ean an d s ob er. To de m onstrate he r sin ce ri ty , she of fe re d to ta ke a ur ine te st. O ff ic er D rake re fu se d th e of fe r an d in ste ad ins ist ed tha t she “ ne ed ed to f ind ane w pla ce to liv e, ” an d th at she

“ ha d to le av e D ee r Park ” bec au se she w as goi ng to be evi ct ed

. A ga in, O ff ic er D rake de ni es th athe m ad e th es e rem ark s. O n M ar ch30, 2004 , O ff

ic er D rake c ont ac te d R ac ha el Co x’ s landl or d, Be tty N ab ors, by

te le phon e. H e tol d he r tha t he ne ed ed to ta lk t o he r in p er son ab out problem s concerning the 426 7 Redm ont Avenue residence. A m e e t i ng w as scheduled fo r Apr il 1, 2 00 4 i n t he lat e aft ern oo n. During either the phone call or the April m eeting, O ffice r D rake told Na bors ab out the vol um e of

pho ne c al ls the pol ic e ha d rece ived r el at ed to 4267 Re dm ont
re sid en ce . T his w as the f ir st t im e tha t N ab or s ha d he ar d a bout suc h c om

pla int s. Be sid es be ing la te w ith re nt and w at er bil l pa ym en ts, N ab or s ha d f

ewpr obl em s w ith Rachae l Cox. D uring the face-to-f ace m eeting, O ffice r D rake inform ed Na bors thatOhio’s mandator y eviction statute re quires landlords to evic t tenants if they know or 1 have a rea sonable suspicion that druguse or distribution is taking plac e in the re sidence or possibly fac e misdemea

nor cha rg es and/or a

batement pur suant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3767.
Pag e 5 of 13 she c oul d no t c ont inu e to r en t t o so m eb ody w ho i s kn ow n to be in vo lv ed in dr ug activity under Ohio’ s abatem ent procedure law

. O f f i c e r D r ake a sk e d N a

bors whether 1 she “ co uld

do s om ethin g a

bout thi s, ” whi chN ab or s un de rs too d to be asug ge sti on that she evict Rachae l Cox. O ffice r D rake disputes that he requested or even
s u g g e s t e d t h a tN ab o r s e v i c tR a c h a e l C o x . H e c l a i ms t h a ta f t e r r e a d i n g t h e c r i me blott er c oncerning th e re sidence, Nabors s tated that she was going to have to take care of th e p ro bl em . Af ter the m eeting, N abors went to the 4267 Redm ont re sidence. S he knocked on the door and Rachae l Cox answere d. N abors then handed Rachae l Cox a three- day

“Notice to L eave the Pr em ises” that had been faxed to Na bors earlier by her attorney tha t sh e subs eque ntl y

c om ple te d. Ac co rd ing to N ab or s, Ra ch ae l Cox re spon de d to t h e n o t i ce b y s ayi n g , “ I’m l ea v i n g , I d o n ’t wa n t t o ca u s e y o uan y t ro ub l e” an d“ I’m
sor ry ... y ou’ re br ough t into thi s. ” N ab or s re spon de d by te lli ng Cox: “ I don’ t w an t y ou to leave, I don’t know, I said the police said I had to. B ut I said—y ou know, a fter the m eeting and stu ff, I have to Rac hael.” Ra ch ae l C ox c la im s th at

af ewday s late r N ab or s c al le d to te ll he r tha t sh e fe lt that what the police we re doin g to R achael wa s wr ong. Na bors a lso expr es s ed h er de si re t o n ot ha ve Rach ael Co x l eav e th e 4 26 7 R ed m on t re si de nc e. O ff ic er D rake a lle ge dly

f oll ow ed up N a bor ’ s th re e- da y

not ic e w ithapho ne c al lPag e 6 of 13

to R ac ha el Co x. H e tol d R ac ha el Co x th at she ne ed ed

to le av e the 426 7 R edm ont residence “ as soon as possib le” and asked for a specific date. O ffice r D rake denies th ateit he r th e p ho ne cal l o r th e co nv ers at io n t oo k p la ce. A lth oughthe not ic e gave he r unt il Apr il 5 to va ca te the pr em ise s, Ra ch ae l C ox asked Nabors that sh e b e g iven until April 15

. Soon thereaf ter, Rachae l Cox m oved out. A s a result, Na

bors did not follow throug h with a forc ible en t ry and detainer (s ta tu to ry ev ic ti on ) pr oc eed in g. Pr ocedur al History Pl ai nti ff f ile d ac om pla int in fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt pur suant t o 42 U

. S. C. § 19 83 against Off

icer D rake, alleging the he deprived her of her constituti onal rights under both th e N inth A m en dm en t and the D ue P ro ce ss C laus e of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. R ac ha el C ox a lso c la im ed that O ff ic er D rake de fam ed

he r. Apx. 5. B o t h t h e N i n t h A me n d me n ta n dd e f a ma t i o n c l a i ms w e r e l a t e r ab a n d o n e d

. I n t e rms of her F ourteenth Am endm ent claim , P laintiff argues that O ffice r D rake, acting und er the c olo r of

law , use d hi s po sit ion to ca use Be tty N ab or s to de cl ar e a vio la tio n of the lease in order to e ffec t her eviction. Af ter discovery , the distric t co u rt g ranted Pl ai nti ff ’ s m oti on fo r le av e to am en d the co m pla int to i nc lud e Po lic e Ch ie f G uil le a nd th e Ci ty of Deer Pa rkas d efen da nt s. De fendants f

iled a j oint m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent. T he district court later gr an te d th e m oti on a s to a ll D ef en da nts
. T he c ourt de te rm ine d th at e ve n th ough Pl ai nti ff ha d ac onst itu tio na lly

pr ote ct ed

pos se sso ry

int eres t i n th e 4267 Re dm ont
res id en ce an d e ve n t ho ug h Off ic er D r a ke ’s act io ns “ were ar gu ab ly repre he ns ib le ,”Pag e 7 of 13

“ Co x w as ne ve r de pr ive d of phy si cal a cc es s to he r hous e by the pol ic e, or

a ny one el se , f or that m at te r... ” Be ca

use the a ct ion s di d no t am ount to ane vic tio n un de r O hio law , the dis trict c ourt c onc lud ed that P la int if

f’ s a lle ge d f

ac ts d id n ot am ount

to a

“ deprivation of Cox’ s poss essory property interest.” The district c ourt did n ot reach the que sti ons of

w he the r the re w as state a ct ion , w he th er Of fi ce r D rake w as a ct ing pursuant to an official policy or custom , or whether De fendants would have been
en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y . Pl ai nti ff f ile d ati m el y

not ic e of appe al , ar gui ng tha t the dis tr ic t cour t e rr ed in its dec ision to grant sum m ary j udgm ent based on the la ck o f a constitu tional de pr iv at io n. Stand ard of R eview W e re vie w a dis tr ic t co urt’ s de ci sio n to gr an t sum m ary judgm en t de novo

. GM C v. Larned Toys, I

nc. , 468 F. 3d 40 5, 412 (6 t h Ci r. 2 006)(citation om itted). Su m m ar y j udgm en t i s on ly

appr opr ia te “ if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to interrogatories, and adm issio ns on file, together with the aff idavits, if any , show that there is no genuin e issue as to any m aterial f

act and th at t he m ovin g party is entitled to j ud gm e nt a s a m a t t e r of l a w . ” F e d. R

. C i v. P

. 56 ( c )

. “ I n r e vi e w i ng a summ ary j udgm en t m oti on, c re dib ili ty j udgm en ts and w ei ghi ng o f the e vid en ce a re pr ohi bit ed

. Ra the r, the e vid en ce sho uld be vie w ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng party .” Id . at 412 (quo tation and citatio ns om itted)

. Th u s fo r this appeal, a ll fact dispu tes will be r esolved in favor of the Plaintiff. D ue P ro ce ss A na lys isPag e 8 of 13

Pl ai nti ff c ont en ds tha t D ef

en da nts vio la te d he r Fo urte en th A m en dm en t D ue Pr oc es s r igh ts b y

de privi ng h er

of the use a nd e nj oym en t of the 426 7 R edm ont
re sid en ce w ith out

apr ed ep ri va tio n he ar ing

. T o a de qua te ly ple ad a 42 U. S. C. § 19 83 cl ai m , P la int if

f m ust al le ge tha t a

de fe ndant, a ct ing und er

state law , de pr ive d he r of

a ri ght se cure d by

the Co nst itu tio n or

law s of the U nit ed

S ta te s- in thi s in stanc e, the Fo urte enth A m en dm en t r igh t t o du e pr oc es s . T homas v. C

ohen , 304 F

. 3d 5 63, 568 (6th C ir. 2002 ). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Am endm ent guarantees tha t “ no S ta te sha ll de pr ive

. . . a ny pe rs on o f li fe, li be rty , or pr ope rty w ith out due process of law .” U .S . C onst. am end. X IV

. “ It is we ll es t ab l i shed that po ssessory interests in property

invok e procedural due process protections.” T hom as , 304 F

. 3d at 576 ( ci tin g F

ue ntes v. She vi n , 407 U

. S. 67, 82 ( 1972 ))

. “ Inpr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s claim s, the deprivation by state action of a constitu tionally protected interest in ‘ life, lib er ty , or pr ope rty ’ is not

in its el f unc onst itu tiona l; w ha t i s un co nst itu tio na l i s th e deprivation of s uch an interest without du e process of law .” Zinermon v. Burch , 494 U. S. 113, 125 (U .S . 199 0). The “ root requirem ent” of the D ue Proce ss Clause is that in m ost c as es “ anind ivi dua l be giv ena n op portun ity f or a he ari ng befo re he is deprived of any

significant prop erty

interest.” Cl ev eland B d. of E d. v . Lo ud er mil l , 470 U. S. 532, 542 (198 5) (here inafter “ Lo ude rm ill ”) ( quot ing B oddi e v. Co nne ct ic ut , 40 1 U.S. 3 71 , 37 9 (1 97 1) ). Pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s c la im s are e xa m ine d unde r a tw o- pa rt a na ly sis

. Fi rs t, the c ourt m

ust de term in e whethe r the int er es t a t st ak e is a pr ot ect ed li be rty

or pr ope rty r igh t un de r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. Only after identify ing such a right do we continue to con sider whether the de pr iva tio n of

that i nte re st c ontrave ne d no tio ns o f due pr oc es s.Pag e 9 of 13

Th om as , 30 4 F .3d at 5 76

. In term s of the first p art of the procedural d ue process analy sis, it is settled that unde r O hio law , P la int if

f, a s ale as eh old te na nt, ha d ar ec ogni ze d pr ope rty int er es t i n the 426 7 R edm ont

r es ide nc e fo r Fo urte en th A m en dm en t purp os es . S ee O hio Re v. Co de A nn. § 53 21. 01; Th om as , 30 4 F .3d at 5 76

. A ft er ide nti fy ing the pr ote ct ed ri ght , w e ne xt tur n to w he the r the de pr iva tio n contravened the notio ns of due process. “ It is w ell settled that a tem porary , nonfinal de pr iva tio n of

pr ope rty i s ‘none the le ss’ ade pr iva tio n inte rm s of the F ourte en th Am endm ent, and m

ust be pre ceded by

a fa ir hearing.” F

ue ntes v . She vi n , 407 U. S. 67, 84- 85 ( 1972 ). “ In F

eu ntes v . She vi n , th e Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t du e pr oc es s requires n otice and a h earing prior to eviction.” F lat ford v. Ci tyofM

onro e , 17 F

. 3d 162, 167 ( 6 Ci r. 199 4)

. Whe n astate a ct or is ac tiv el y

involv ed in anunl aw fu l th

ev ic tio n, ade pr iva tio n oc curs w hi ch trigger s pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s r igh ts e ve n if post-depriv ation proce edings are available that m ay be used a s a re m edy . S ee Soldal

v. Co ok Co unt y , 506 U

. S. 56 (1 992) (i lle ga l re m ova lof tr ai le r hom e by pr iva te m obi le hom e par k own er w ith co unty de puty she ri ff s pre se nt to pr ev en t i nte rf er en ce w as not onl y he ld t o be a “ se iz ur e” of pr ope rty fo r the pur pose s of the F our

th A m en dm en t, but also a ctionable separ ately under the Fourteenth Am endm ent for la ck o f procedu ral due pr oc es s) ; Th om as , 304 F

. 3d 5 63 (a m aj or ity uphe ld dis tr ic t co urt’ s de te rm ina tio n tha t qu al if

ie d im m uni ty a nd s um m ar y j udgm en t w as not

appr opr ia te f

or of fi ce rs w ho he lpe d tr an sit ion al she lte r unl aw fu lly e vic t re sid en ts w ith out pr ior not ic e and he ar ing in vio la tio n of the Fo urte en th Am endm en t) ; F lat ford , 17 F

. 3d 1 62 ( af

fi rm ing theAn eviction is either a ctual or c onstructive under Ohio law. Mc

Al pin v . W oo dr uff , 11 2 Ohio St. 120 (1860). To constitute an ac tual eviction under Ohio law, ther e must be some ac t of the landlord that c ompels the aba ndonment of the prope rty . The mer e notice to va cate or dema nd fo r p os se ssi on

is n ot a n e vic tio n, sin c e it i s a

pr e c a tor y ste p to ins tit

uti ngan a c tio n f

or fo rc ibl e and entr y and deta iner pursua

nt to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1923.04. Gree nberg v. M urphy , 16 Ohio C.D. 359 (Ohio Cir. Ct. 1904). Howeve r, a notice to vacate by the prope rty

owner that the tenanc y is being terminated, c ombined with a demand f or possession, is not an actua l eviction for which dama g es may

be cove red. Gr e e nb e rg , 16 Ohio C.D. at 3. Constructive eviction is the surre nder of

possession beca

use some ac t of interfe renc e compe ls the tenant to leave

. Liberal Sav. &Loan Co. v. Frankel Reality Co. , 137 Ohio St. 489, 499 (1940). Pag e 10 of 13 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of qua lif ie d im m uni ty to b uil din g in spe ct or w he n he a lon g w ith pol ic e of fi ce rs ev ic te d te na nts fr om ap ar tm en t bui ldi ng be ca

use of unsa fe c ondi tio ns without prior not ice or hearing because he did no t act re asonablywhen he deprived p l ai n t i ff s o f r i g h tt o t h ei r l ea s eh o l dp ro p er t y i n t er es t , b u tre v er s i n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de nia l o f qu a l i f i e di m m u n i t y t o p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s , h o l d i n g t h a tt h e y

a c t e dr e a s o n ab ly
un de r th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces of u ns afe c on di ti on s)

. It is undisputed that Plaintiff wa s not afforded a hear ing. H owever , the Th om as
an al y sis does no t end th er e be ca use w e m

ust de te rm ine w he the r a de pr iva tio n occurred. T he district court tried to answer this q u estion byexam ining whether Plaintiff w as “ evicted” as defined by Ohio s t at u t e and Ohio case law

. T he district 2

co urt de te rm ine d th at

the un dis put ed

f ac ts f ai le d to a m ount

to ei the r ana ct

ua l or
co nstru ct ive e victi on un der O hio law be ca use Ra ch ae l C ox v oluntari ly le ft the pr em is es aft er rece iv in g th e “Not ic e to Vacat e th e p rem is es ” fro m he r la nd lo rd . As
a result , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d D ef en da nts ’ m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t de te rm ini ng tha t P la int if

f fa ile d to pr es en t e vid en ce of ade pr iva tio n. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t cour t, m an y of the c ri tic al f

ac ts are und isp ute d. T hePag e 11 of 13

landl or d gave Ra ch ae l C ox n oti ce that i s bo th re qui re d by law an d pr er equis ite to a forcible entry

an dd et ai n er(s t at u t o ry ev i ct i o n ) a ct i o n . Ho we v er , R ac h ae l Co x vacated the prem ises before such an action wa s required and prior to a hearing. Moreover, De fendants did not ph y sically seize the property

nor we re they

present when P laintiff

v ac at ed h erp re m i s es . In s p i t e o f th es e fa ct s , Pl ai n t i ff co n t en d s t h at Of fi ce r D ra k e’s alleged intim idating actions and no t-so-subtl e threats to both he r and her landlord

am ou nt ed to ac onstru ct ive e vic tio n si m ilar to the one e ff ec tua te d in Th om as . 3 04 F. 3d 5 63. R ac ha el Co x r el ie s onthe pa rt of Judg e Cl ay ’ s di sse nt i n Th om as , where he noted “ the la ck of phy sical force is not terribly germ ane inasm

uch as the police effe ctuated the eviction by the very apparent and not too subtl e th reat... of dire legal
co nse que nc es sho uld the te na nts not c om ply w iththe of

fi ce rs ’ ins tr

uc tio ns t o va ca te the pr ope rty . ” 304 F

. 3d a t 57 2. E ve n if thi s po rt ionha d be ena dopt ed by the

m aj ority , which it wa s not, the facts of Th om as ar e sti ll ina ppos ite sin ce in Th om as the state a ct or s w ere p hysical ly pr es en t w he n th ey

unque sti ona

bly or de re d and
es co rt ed te na nts f ro m the ir r oom s. I n c ontra st, it

w as N ab or s, th e pr ivate landl or d,

w ho a ske d R ac ha el Co x to le av e the pr em ise s by w ay of the “ N oti ce to V ac at e the Prem is es ” fo rm

wit ho ut an y

st at e act or s p res en t. Inr es pons e, P la int if

f cl ai m s th at

N ab or s w as co erc ed

to ini tiate the e vic tio n process through Of

ficer Dr ake’ s actions, his statem ents, and the D eer Park Police D ep ar tm en t po lic y . A state a ct or und er som e ci rc um stanc es c anbe he ld r es pons ibl e fo r a pr iva te de ci sio n when [the S tate actor] has ex er ci s ed coerc ive power or has provid ed such a signi ficant encouragem ent, e ither overt or covert, that the choicePag e 12 of 13

m ust in law to be that of

the S ta te
. . . Me re approv al or ac qui es ce nc e in the initiativ es of a private party is not su ff

i ci en t for those initiativ es un de r th e te rm s o f th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t... Blum v. Ya retsky , 45 7 U.S. 9 91 , 10 04 (19 82 )(ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

. W e nonetheless do not find th is argum ent persu as i v e. Ha d Def endants been fo rc ibl y r em ove d or

barr ed P la int if f fr om e nte ri ng the pr em ises w ith out f oll ow ing O hio ’ s f o r c i ble de ta ine r pr oc ed

ur es , P la int if

f w oul d have a n a ct ion ab le c la im be ca use she w as de pr ive d of he r le as eh old int er es t. A ddi tio na lly , ha d D ef en da nts e nte re d th e pr em ise s and a ct ive ly

part ic ipa ted i n ac onstru ct ive e vic tio n, suc h a s or de ri ng and
es co rt ing P laint if

f out of the pr em ise s, w ith out

f oll ow ing the statut or

y e vic tio n procedures, this to o would am ount to an actionable cl ai m . Bu t that is not what transpired. Plaintiff was g iven notice to vacate throu gh her land lord, which she later
co m pli ed w ithby vol unt ar ily

va cat ing the pr em ise s ou tsi de the pr es en ce of state
ac tor s. A lth oughO ff

ic er Drake m ay

ha ve e nc our ag ed

Ra ch ae l C ox t o va ca te the pr em ise s, it

w as ult im at el y

he r de ci sio n to c om

ply w iththe not ic e. I n c ontra st, the of fi ce rs in Th om as entered into the tenants’ room s, anno u n ced that the tenants had to l eave , r ef

use d to li ste n to the te na nts ’ posi tio n, an d the n es co rt ed the m out of the shelter all the while w ithou t the necessary eviction papers. H ere, Rachae l Cox had

a ch oic e to va ca te the pr em ise s or c ha lle nge a n e ve ntu al e vic tio n, unl ike the te na nts in Th om as who them selves attem pted to challenge t he eviction while the officer s
we re pre sent but we re not allow ed to do so. Although there m ay be cases w here an
o f f i c e r ’ s m e r e p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o e r c i o n o f a t e n a n t t o v a c a t e o r a l a n d l o r d t o e vic t a tenant from

the prem ises m ay constitu te a deprivation of property , such a s a case thatThis opinion does not address the law fulness and c onstitut ionality of either the 3 mandatory

eviction statute or the City of De er Par

k’s surveillanc e policy

. Pag e 13 of 13 includes th reats of vio lence, this is no t such a case. A s a result, we determ ine that Pl ainti ff w as not de pr ive d of

the use of

he r re nte d pr em ise s du e to s ta te a ct ion

. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er d is m is si ng th e cas e is AFFIRM ED. 3