The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United States District J udg e for the Southern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. File Na me: 09a0039n.06 Filed: January

16, 2009 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 08-1035 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT WI L L I AM F L OWE RS, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. CI TY OF DETROI T, L ANCE NE WMA N, JAME S F I SHE R, AN TH ON Y JAC KSO N, KU RTI SS STAPL ES, AND OTHE R UNKNOWN OF F I CER S , in individual and of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s, Defendants-A

ppellees
. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

/ Be fore : MARTI

N, and COOK , Circuit J udg es, and WATSON, District Judge. * BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. Plaintiff Will iam Flowe rs was a rre sted and char g ed with the murde r of a n acqua intance, John Sm iley . These c harg es we re dismissed, and Flowe rs sued the City

of De troit, four of its police off icer s, and other unknown office rs alleg ing fa lse arr e st a

nd fa lse imp ri so nme nt, ma lic iou s p ro se c uti on , g ro ss n e g lig e nc e , a bu se of pr oc e ss,
and vio latio ns of

the F ourt h A me ndme nt. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i nNo. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 2 Def endants’ f avor, f inding that F lowers wa s prec luded from a rg uing la ck of pr obable c ause f or his arre st—an eleme nt of ea ch of his cla ims—by collater al estoppel a

rising f rom a state c ourt judgme nt on the issue of proba ble ca use. We find no er

ror in the we ll-rea soned judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt , a

nd the re fo re AF F I RM.
I. On Ap ri l 20 , 2 00 4, De tr oit

po lic e of fi c e rs re sp on de d to a re po rt of a sh oo tin g . Upo n a rr iva l, the y dis c ov e re d th a t so me on e ha d k ill e d Joh n Sm ile y by sh oo tin g h im in the he a d. De fe nd ants Newma n, Staples, Fisher , and Jackson wer e the City of De troit homicide detec tives responsible for investigating Smiley ’s death. L ater that day , investigators spoke t o L oree n Rounds who was visiting Smiley ’s apa rtment when he w a s s h o t. I nh e r w r itte ns tate me n t, Ro u n d s g a v e inv e s ti g a to r s a f a ls e n a me ; s h e la ter explained she did this because she had outstandingwar rants. She reported that Smil ey had let two men into the apar

tment, one whom she recog nized as “St eve,” and anothe r whose f ace she did not
see a nd could not ide ntify
. She said that shortly afte r Smil ey and the two men wa lked into a bac k bedroom, she he ard a bang
. Then, Steve and the other man emer g ed from the bedr oom, threate ned her, f orce d her at gunpoint into a bedroom, and then stole items f rom the apar

tment a nd left. Rounds also said that Flowe rs had spe nt the previous night in the apar tment but had left ar ound 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. to g o to work. Th e ne xt da

y , inve sti g a tor s visi te d Fl ow e rs a t wor k an d ask e d him ( or , a c c or din g to F low e rs , “orde red him”) to go w ith them to the police station to assist i n the murder investigation. Flower sNo. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 3 told the office rs t hat he was at home wit h his fiancé e, Sharon Jackson, at the time of the murder. H e said that he and J ackson had been at Smil ey ’s apar tment pla ying car ds with Rounds and Sm iley the night befor e the murder and that he had spent the night ther e. Ac cordingto Flower s, J ackson ha d picked him up ea

rly the next morning to take him to work a nd that was the la st tim e he had se en S m i l e y. On A p r il 2 2 , a s e c o n d inv e s ti g a to r in te r v ie w e d Ro u n d s , an d s h e g a v e a s e cond wr itten statement. Rounds r evea led that her ear lier statement wa s not truthful beca use, in addition to giving
a false name, she had lied about not be ing able to ide ntify the second man involved—she had known
a ll a lon g it was Flo wers. Round s e xpla ine d th a t sh e did no t r e ve a l F low e rs ’ i de nti ty in h e r f ir st written statement beca

use, immediately afte r the murder, he had threatened to kill her if she did not keep quie t. L ater that day , Flowe rs lear

ned fr om J ackson’ s son that police had surr ounded their home
. F low e rs and

Jac ks on we nt t o th e po lic e statio n wh e re F low e rs wa s arr e ste d. Ac c or din g to F low e rs , Jac ks on wa s wi lli ng to pr ov ide a state me nt c or ro bo ratin g F low e rs ’ a c c ount that he wa s a t ho me wi th her at the time of the murder , but the i nvestig ators did not g et a written st atement from J ackson. A formal wa rra nt was obtained two da

y s later, on Apr il 24, char g ing Flowe rs with f irst de g ree murder, fe lony mur de r, fe lon -i n- po sse ssi on of a fi re arm , an d as a ha

bit ua l off e nd e r und e r Mic hig an’ s st a tut e for possession of a

firea rm during commission of a felony
. T h e wa rr an t reque st was base d on Rounds’ second wr itten statement. I t did not mention R ounds’ pre vious statement, nor Jackson’s offe r to g ive a state ment that she wa s with Flower s at the time of the murde r. On M ay 1 4 a s t at e j u d ge p re s i d edo v er Fl o we rs ’ p re l i m i n ary

ex am i n at i o n . At t h e h ea ri n g,No. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 4 Rounds and Offic er N ewman, the investigator who had submitted the wa rra nt r eq u est, testified. Af te r t he c ounty pr os e c uto r e nd e d h is dir e c t exam inatio n of ea c h witn e ss, the jud g e g a ve F low e rs ’ criminal def

ense attorney

an opportunity

to cross-e x amine the witnesse s, which he declined. O nce the testimony

conclude d, the cour

t hear d arguments from the prosec ution a nd defe nse counsel. The court droppe d the wea

pons char g es, but found proba ble c au s e o n t he murde r cha rg es and bound Flowe rs over for trial. The trial wa s supposed to beg in on Aug ust 16, but Rounds , the prosec ution’s
on ly wi tne ss, fa ile d to a

pp e ar a nd the c ourt dis mis se d th e mur de r c ha rg e s. F low e rs fi le d a c omp la int in state c ourt un de r 42 U .S. C. § 19 83 a g a ins t th e City of De tr oit , four named police of

fice rs, and other unknown officers alleg ing: false ar rest and f alse imprisonment (Count I ), malicious prosec ution (Count I I ), g ross neg lige nce ( Count I I I ), abuse of proce ss (Count I V), warra

ntless sear ch and seizure without probable c ause in violation of the F ourth Amendment (C ount V) , mal ic iou s p ro se c uti on in v iol a tio n o f t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt ( Count V I ), and de lib e rate indiffer ence by

the City of De troit (Count VI I ). The D efe ndants remove d the ca se to fede ral c ourt wher e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r an te d th e ir mo ti o n f o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t o n th e g r o u n d th a t issue pr e c lus ion

ba rr e d F low e rs fr om r e lit ig a tin g the e xiste nc e of pr ob a ble c a us e . F low e rs a

pp e a ls.
II. This Court revie ws de novo a district c ourt’s decision to g rant summary judgme nt. Be nn e tt
v . Ci ty of E as tpo inte , 410 F.3d 810, 817 ( 6th Cir. 2005).
III
. We a pply state law to deter

mine whether

Flowe rs, in this S ection 1983 ac tion, is precludedNo. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 5 from cha lleng ing the state cour t’s deter m i n ati on of proba ble ca use at a preliminary

examination hear ing. Da rra h v. City

of O ak Pa rk, 2 5 5 F. 3 d 3 0 1 , 3 1 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Ha rin g v . P ro sis e , 462 U.S. 306, 3 1 3 (1 9 8 3 )). Unde r Michig an law, a party is preclude d from re -litigating a n issue wh e n: 1) the re is i de nti ty of pa rt ie s a c ro ss the pr oc e e din g s, 2) the re wa s a va lid , f ina l ju dg me nt i n the fi rs t pr oc e e din g , 3 ) the same iss ue wa s ac tua lly lit ig a te d an d ne c e ssa ri ly de te rm ine d in the fi rs t pro c e e din g , an d 4) the pa rt y a g a ins t who m the do c tr ine is as se rt e d ha d a ful l and fa ir o p p o rt u n i t y

t o l i t i gat e t h e i s s u e i nt h e e ar l i er p ro ce ed i n g. Id. (c i t i n g People v . Gates , 452 N.W.2d 627, 630-31 (Mich. 1990))
. He re , F l o w e r s c o n c e de s th a t th e fi rs t tw o e le me nts are satis fi e d ( same pa rt ie s, fi na l ju dg me nt) but ar g u e s th a t h is Se c ti o n1 9 8 3 a c ti o nis n o t t h e “ s a me is s u e ” a s w a s li ti g a te d a t t h e p r e liminary hear ing, a nd that he wa s not give n a full and f air opportunity

to liti g ate pr obable c ause.
A. Same I

ssue Litigat ed Flowe rs ar g ues that his c laim f ocuses not on whether probable cause exis ted, but on whether De fe n d an t s at t em p t edt o “f ra m e” h i m b y

“m i s s t at [ i n g ] t h e fa ct s an d d el i b er at el y

o m i t t [ i n g] exculpatory

evidenc e fr om the war

rant re quest; thus, creating a false a nd incomplete version of the fac ts in order to establish proba ble ca use.” Da rra h v . City of Oa k

Pa rk held t hat a state court deter mination of proba

ble ca use did not pr e c lud e a

su bs e qu e nt m a lic iou s p ro se c uti on c la im w he re the pla int if

f a lle g e d th a t “ the de fe nd antof fi c e rs ha d kno wi ng ly su

pp lie d th e ma g istra

te wi th f a lse inf or matio n in or de r t o e sta

bli shpr ob a

ble
cause .” 255 F .3d at 311. L ater in Hi nc hm an v . M

oo re , 312 F.3d 198, 202 (6th Cir. 2002), we applied Darrah to allow a plaintiff’s claim to pr ocee d wher e she a lleg ed that dete ctives supplied theNo. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 6 state court with “a false version of t he facts.” And mor e re cently , in Pe e t v . Ci ty of D e tro it , 502 F.3d 557, 566 (6th Cir. 2007), we observe d that the exception to the usual prec lusive eff ect of a state c ourt pr ob a ble c a us e de te rm inatio n a

pp lie s w he n th e re is e vid e nc e of a “ po lic e of

fi c e r’ s su pp lyingfa lse information to establish probable cause .” Flowe rs contends that D ef en d an t s ’ fa ilure to state in the wa rra nt reque st that Rounds had made a previous stateme nt (which include d g iving a false na me and lying a

bout her a bility to identify F lo w e r s ) c r e a te d

a f a ls e im p r e s s io na s to Ro u n d s ’ c r e d ib il it y . B u t a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o b s e r ved, Rounds’ previous statement, dr ug use, and chang ed st ory wer e all broug ht to light at the pre liminary examinatio n . An imperfe ct witness is not the same thing as a “ false” witness. Apar t from the challeng e to how the De fenda nts portray ed Roun d s , Fl ower s offe rs no evidenc e upon which a
rea sonable jury

could conc lude that they deliberately

provided the judg e with false inf ormation. Thoug h Flowe rs char acte rizes the Def endants’ a ctions as “f

alse,” the war

rant re quest and tra

nscript of the pre liminary

examination does not support thi s acc usation. F low e rs a lso argue s th a t in ve sti g a tor s le ft ou t e vid e nc e “ that w a s so c le arl y e xcu lpator

y [as ] to m a ke the inf

or matio n p ro vid e d to the jud g e fa lse and inc omp le te .” Mo st tro ub lin g to F low e rs is the omission from the war rant re quest of any ref

ere nce to Jackson’s willingne ss to give a statement that he wa s with her at the time of the murder
. He also maintains that the investigators should have included a witness’ acc ount that she saw two men leavingin a light blue tr uck. B ut neither Darrah nor any of the c ases to apply

it held that the exception to issue prec lusion applies by virtue of a

lack of deta il in a warr ant req u es t
. T o the contra ry , this Court has held that “pre cision” in war rant reque sts “wher e ther e is probable ca u s e t o justify an ar rest, is not a constitutional require ment.”No. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 7 Pee t , 5 02 F .3 d at 56 5 n. 2. Al tho ug h in de te rm ini ng pr ob a ble c a us e po lic e of

fi c e rs may

no t “ sim ply tur n a bli nd e y e tow ard

po te nti a lly

e xcu lpator

y e vid e nc e kn ow n to the m in an e ff or t to pin a c ri me on someone,” Ah le rs v . S c he bil , 188 F.3d 365, 371- 72 (6th C i r. 1999), leaving out of a wa rra nt
re qu e st the fa c t th a t th e a c c us e d’ s f ianc é e is w ill ingto o ff

e r a n a lib i do e s n ot o the rw ise ne g a te probable cause . See Coogan v . W ixon , 820 F.2d 170, 173 (6th Cir. 1987) , overruled on othe r grounds , Fran tz v. Vi lla

geof B ra dfo rd , 245 F.3d 869 ( 6th Cir. 2001). And Def endant Ne wman testified that he de livered the entire homicide file alongwith the war rant re quest to the prosec utor fo r h is r e vie w. Al tho ug h in so me case s mater ia l om iss ion s f ro m a wa rr ant r e qu e st m ay

be so eg reg ious as to make it “fa lse” for purposes of establishing pr obable c ause, the evidenc e her e, eve n considere d in the light most favor able to F lowers, doe s not support such a finding
. Thus , d e sp ite F low e rs ’ c ha ra c te ri zat ion

of De fe nd ants ’ c on du c t a s “ fa lse ,” F low e rs fa ile d to offe r fac ts that demonstrate that this ca se fits within the Darrah exception for cla ims supported by evidenc e of f

alse infor mation.
B. Fu ll a nd

Fa ir O pp or tun ity Mo re ov e r n ot e ve ry

pr e lim ina

ry e xami natio n d e te rm inatio n w ill pr e c lud e a su bs e qu e nt Section 1983 action. Coogan , 820 F.2d at 175. I f the pre liminary examination is “little more than
a formalit[y ]” or wher e “strate g ic conce rns” preve nt the exercise of fully adver sarial pr ocee ding, the state dete rmination should not be give n prec lusive eff ect. Id. B ut on the oth e r ha nd , “ wh e re the state aff ords an oppor

tunity for a n acc used to contest proba ble ca use at a p re l i m i n ary

hear ing a

nd the
acc used does do, the finding of probable cause .
. . should fore close relitigation of that finding in aNo. 08-1035

Fl owe rs v . Ci ty

of D e tro it, e t al

. Pag e 8 subsequent § 1983 ac tion.” Id. A re view of the transcr ipt of the preliminary examination hear ing de monstrates that it was not a “f ormality .” Indeed, the court g ave F lowers’ defe nse counsel the opportunity to cross-e x amine t h e wi t n es s es. Alt houg h he dec lined, he wa s not deprived of a “f air opportunity ” to do so. Moreove r, F lowers’ counsel successfully challeng ed the wea pons char g e during the or al ar g ument that followed the w itnesses’ testimony
. That the judge “cut off” the prosec utor’s line of questioning
re g ard ingRound s’ fi rs t w ri tte n s tate me nt d oe s n ot m e an th a t c ouns e l w as de pr ive d o f a fa ir
o p p o rt unity

to liti g ate pr obable c ause; the tra nscript re veals that it was a ctually Flowe rs’ c ounsel wh o o bje c te d o n “ fo un datio n” g ro un ds to the lin e of qu e sti on ing
. Thus , th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y conclude d that Flowe rs was afforde d and full and f air opportunity

to liti g ate the e x istence of probable cause at his preliminary examination hearing
.

I V. The district court c orre ctly deter mined that the pre liminary examination hearingfeatured the
same pa rt ie s, a va lid fi na l jud g me nt, the same iss ue a t the c e nte r of lit ig a tio n, and a ful l an d fa ir op po rt un ity fo r F low e rs to l iti g ate the iss ue . F low e rs is the re fo re ba rr e d in his Sec tio n 198 3 c la im fr om r e lit ig a tin g the e xiste nc e of pr ob a ble c a us e and we AF F I RM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.