NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0299n.06 No. 10-5541 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT JAMES C. DAVIS, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. B R I A N M c K

I N N EY ; C I TY OF M A D I SO N V I L L E , KENTUCK

Y Defendan ts-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT C O U R T F O R T H E WEST ERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCK

Y

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: McK

EAGU E and WHITE , Circuit Judges; Z OUHARY, Distr ict Judge. * P ER CURIAM . Plaintiff J ames C. Davis appea ls t h e d i s trict court’s awa rd of summary judgme nt in favor of the Def endants on his fede ral and state-law claims for malicious prosec ution. This action arises out of an investigation of a renta l proper ty that was in a dang erous and unsanitary condition. Follow i n g t he investigation, a Kentucky g rand jury indicted Davis for the felony of wanton endang erme nt. I t appea rs that Davis’s son actua lly owns the proper ty , and Davis maintains that he had no role in the owner ship or manag ement of t h e p ro perty
. Eventually , the prosec ution dismiss ed the c harg es without prejudice , and Davis broug ht these cla ims in federa l court. To preva il on a claim of malicious prosec ution, under both fede ral and state law, a plaintiff must establish the lack of p ro b ab l e ca use. Under fede ral law, the issuance of an indictment by a The Honora

ble J ack Z ouhary , United States District J udg e for the Norther n District of Ohio, * sitti ng by desig nation.No. 10-5541

Davis v. M

cKinney g rand jury conclusively deter mines the exis tence of probable cause . Barnes v. W right , 449 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir. 2006); cf

. Cook v. McPhe rson , 273 F. App’x 421, 424 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that an exception to this rule exis ts wher e a plaintiff is able to show that defe ndant police office rs knowing ly prese nted false testimony to the g rand jury ). Simi larly , under Kentucky law, a g rand- jury indictment

cre ates a rebuttable presumption that probable cause exis ted. See D avidson v. Castner-Knott Dry Goods Co. Inc. , 202 S.W .3d 597, 607 (Ky

. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Conder v. Morrison , 121 S.W .2d 930, 931 (Ky . 1938)). I n this case , the district court found that Davis had not proff ere d any evidence— s uch as evidenc e that false testimony was prese nted to the g rand jury —that would tend t o o v er co me the presumption cre ated by the i ndictmen t
. W e h ave conducted de novo revie w of the record and we ag ree with the district court’s conclusion. This conclusion should come as littl e surprise beca use Davis’s counsel at the district court conducte d littl e to no discovery

. I ndeed, Davis has not obtained the g rand- jury transcr ipt, and we have no way of knowing the rea sons the g rand jury indicted Davis. Fur ther, it is undisputed that Davis responde d to a call that police office rs wer e at the proper ty , and t h at Davis acc ompanied the office rs as they investigated the condition of the proper ty
. Ha v i n g considere d all of t he arg uments proff ere d by Davis i n his brief, and at oral arg ument, we find that any further analy sis would be unnece ssarily duplicative of the analy sis f ound in the district c ourt’s opinion. Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the district court’s deter mination that Davis failed to establish a lac k of proba

ble ca use.

- 2 -