Source: https://m.openjurist.org/395/f3d/291/radvansky-v-city-of-olmsted-falls
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 23:59:08
Document Index: 369471053

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5321', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 2911', '§ 5321', '§ 5321', '§ 5321', '§ 5321', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§ 1986', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§ 2744', '§ 2744', '§ 1335', '§ 5321', '§ 5321', '§ 1983', '§ 2911', '§ 2911', '§ 2911', '§ 2909', '§ 2744', '§ 2744']

395 F3d 291 Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls | OpenJurist
395 F. 3d 291 - Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls
395 F3d 291 Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls
395 F.3d 291
CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS et al., Defendants-Appellees.
John T. McLandrich, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.
John T. McLandrich, Robert F. Cathcart, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.
The events in this case stem from Radvansky's arrest on May 15, 2001, for burglary of Derrick Rosemark's ("Rosemark") house located at 26060 Redwood Drive (the "Redwood Drive residence") in Olmsted Falls, Ohio. Since June 21, 2000, Radvansky had been living as a tenant at that residence, pursuant to an oral agreement whereby he paid Rosemark $450 in rent each month.1 Radvansky has stated that his rent was fully paid, with the exception of $60 more that he owed for the month of May 2001.
Around the end of April or beginning of May 2001, Rosemark called the Olmsted Falls Police Department and spoke with Detective Caine. Rosemark informed Caine that Radvansky had been living at Rosemark's residence but left for Florida still owing Rosemark money. Rosemark asked how to recover the money owed to him and expressed concern that Radvansky still had possession of keys to the premises. Despite recognizing that this was a civil dispute between the two parties, Caine, a police detective, gave legal advice to Radvansky that contravened Ohio law. Caine told Rosemark he should contact a lawyer to get his money back but that "You can change the locks if you want." J.A. at 677 (Caine Dep.). Ohio law prohibits a landlord from excluding a tenant from the premises for the purpose of recovering possession of the residence. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5321.15. Caine suggested that if Rosemark did indeed change the locks, he should inform Radvansky not to break into the house.
After spending the weekend at a friend's house, Radvansky returned to the Redwood Drive residence on Sunday, May 13, 2001, and found a note posted on the door from Rosemark, informing Radvansky that he was now locked out.2 Radvansky stated in his deposition that he proceeded to call Rosemark at his place of employment, but that the latter "would not reason with [him]." J.A. at 831-32 (Radvansky Dep.). Realizing that he could not enter the house, Radvansky left the premises.
Radvansky returned the following night, Monday, May 14, 2001, only to find that he was still locked out of the premises. At that point, Radvansky crossed the street, introduced himself to a neighbor, Ken Winland ("Winland"), and informed him of the situation. Winland stated at his deposition that he recognized Radvansky as one of the two individuals who lived across the street. Radvansky told Winland that Rosemark was using drugs and had locked him out of the house. Radvansky explained that "[he] just wanted to get [his] firearms out of [his] locked bedroom."3 J.A. at 838 (Radvansky Dep.). Winland stated that Radvansky asked him if he had "a butter knife or something I can use to break in across the street?" J.A. at 1273 (Winland Dep.). Radvansky claimed that Winland provided him with a folding blade, but he was unable to gain entrance into the house with it. Radvansky went back to the Winland house and returned the knife. Radvansky showed Winland the note which Rosemark had written him and then left. Winland asserted that he never gave Radvansky a knife or any other tool to break into the house, but rather suggested that Radvansky call the police to gain entrance. Furthermore, after Radvansky left, Winland walked inside his house and told his wife to call the police. Winland stated that he was present when his wife called 911, and he heard her tell the dispatcher that the guy living across the street was attempting to break in to get his belongings.
The Olmsted Falls Police Department fielded the call from the Winlands and dispatched Officer Telegdy and Sergeant Daniel Gilles ("Gilles").4 Both Telegdy and Gilles stated in their depositions that they found it unusual that a burglar would ask a neighbor for a tool to break into a house. J.A. at 743 (Gilles Dep.), 1167-68 (Telegdy Dep.). Gilles was aware of the conversation between Rosemark and Caine which took place a few weeks earlier and that he knew there was "a civil problem with Mr. Radvansky, as far as payment." J.A. at 732 (Gilles Dep.). When responding to the call on the night of May 14, however, Gilles claimed that he did not make the connection between the Caine conversation and the 911 call. Telegdy and Gilles arrived at the Redwood Drive residence, but Radvansky had already left. After checking the house, Gilles talked to Winland, who relayed the details of his conversation with Radvansky. By that point, Rosemark arrived at the residence and spoke with Gilles. Rosemark informed Gilles that Radvansky used to live at the house but did not any longer. Telegdy stated that Rosemark informed them that Radvansky had property in the house and that there was a dispute between Radvansky and Rosemark about money. After ensuring that the premises were secure, the officers left the scene.5
On April 4, 2002, Radvansky filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the City, the Olmsted Falls Police Department, Rice, Caine, Saxer, Telegdy, and Rosemark. The complaint alleged numerous violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,6 conspiracy to deprive Radvansky of his right to equal protection in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986, and various state-law claims.7 On May 16, 2002, Radvansky filed a motion for default judgment against Rosemark for his failure to answer the complaint, which was granted on August 21, 2002.8 On June 28, 2002, the district court granted Olmsted Falls Police Department's motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was not sui juris. The remaining defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court on May 12, 2003. Radvansky filed a timely notice of appeal.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., 96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir.1996). "Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper `if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). "In deciding upon a motion for summary judgment, we must view the factual evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Nat'l Enters., Inc. v. Smith, 114 F.3d 561, 563 (6th Cir.1997). Finally, "[b]ecause the doctrine of qualified immunity is a legal issue, its application by the district court is reviewed de novo." Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365, 369 (6th Cir.1999).
Radvansky brought his federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have stated that § 1983 by its terms does not create any substantive rights but rather "merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere." Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303, 310 (6th Cir.2000). To prevail on his § 1983 claim, Radvansky "must establish that a person acting under color of state law deprived [him] of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Waters v. City of Morristown, 242 F.3d 353, 358-59 (6th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court has stated, however, that "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Qualified immunity analysis involves three inquiries: (i) "whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs show that a constitutional violation has occurred;" (ii) "whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known;" and (iii) "whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights." Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 848 (6th Cir.2003). Qualified immunity must be granted if the plaintiff cannot establish each of these elements. Williams ex rel. Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
1. Telegdy & Saxer
Radvansky's most substantial claim is that Officers Telegdy and Saxer violated his constitutional rights when they arrested him for burglary of the Redwood Drive residence. The Fourth Amendment, which is made applicable to the states by its incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment, mandates that "a law enforcement officer may not seize an individual except after establishing probable cause that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime." Id. Probable cause necessary to justify an arrest is defined as "whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [arrestee] had committed or was committing an offense." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964). A reviewing court must assess the existence of probable cause "from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 819, 123 S.Ct. 95, 154 L.Ed.2d 26 (2002) (internal citations omitted). Determining whether probable cause existed, "presents a jury question, unless there is only one reasonable determination possible." Gardenhire, 205 F.3d at 315.
In this case, there is a genuine dispute of material facts which would permit a reasonable jury to find that Telegdy and Saxer lacked probable cause when they arrested Radvansky for burglary. Under Ohio law, the crime of burglary is defined as follows: "No person, by force, stealth or deception, shall ... trespass in a permanent or temporary habitation of any person when any person other than an accomplice of the offender is present or likely to be present." Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2911.12(A)(4) (emphasis added). One of the necessary elements of burglary is proof of a trespass, which "can only occur on the property of another." State v. Harding, No. C-820345, 1983 WL 8752, at *1 (Ohio Ct.App. Mar.23, 1983); State v. Johnson, 120 Ohio App. 191, 201 N.E.2d 791, 792 (1963). By the terms of a rental agreement, a tenant is "entitled ... to the use and occupancy of residential premises to the exclusion of others." Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5321.01(A). Therefore, a tenant, who is granted a possessory interest, cannot then be held criminally liable for invading the landlord's title interest during the term of the tenancy. See, e.g., State v. Harper, No. CA93-08-066, 1994 WL 81983, at *2 (Ohio Ct.App. Mar. 14, 1994) (holding that a current tenant cannot be liable for criminal trespass); State v. Threats, No. CA 2289, 1987 WL 11811, at *2 (Ohio Ct.App. May 26, 1987) (holding that a tenant could not be liable for trespass because he did not have the criminal intent required); State v. Herder, 65 Ohio App.2d 70, 415 N.E.2d 1000, 1003 (1979) ("Trespass is an invasion of the possessory interest of property, not an invasion of title."). Because a current tenant cannot be criminally liable for a trespass onto the property in his possession, it follows that a burglary charge against him cannot be sustained.9 See Harding, 1983 WL 8752, at *1 (concluding that absent evidence that defendant was a tenant, he did not have a possessory interest and therefore, "committed a trespass sufficient to sustain a burglary conviction"). The moment the property interest has ended, however, the former tenant must seek permission to re-enter the residence. See State v. Johnson, No. 59096, 1991 WL 204976, at *2 (Ohio Ct.App. Oct. 10, 1991) (finding that a tenant who re-entered the premises without permission after the tenancy had ended committed a trespass and could be found guilty of burglary). Failure to seek permission to re-enter the former residence "constitute[s] an unconsented and unprivileged entry and [is] punishable as a trespass." Id. In this case, Radvansky was a tenant at the Redwood Drive residence pursuant to an oral agreement with Rosemark whereby Radvansky paid $450 per month. Under Ohio law, this agreement would be recognized as a periodic monthly tenancy which could be terminated by either side with notice of termination. Manifold, 586 N.E.2d at 1145; Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5321.17. If the landlord gives proper notice, but the tenant refuses to vacate, the landlord may bring a forcible detainer action in court to remove the tenant. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5321.03(4). Ohio law expressly prohibits self-help evictions by landlords. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5321.15(A). As the Ohio courts have stated, "[c]riminal trespass statutes do not afford a substitute for other adequate civil remedies." Harper, 1994 WL 81983, at * 2; Threats, 1987 WL 11811, at *2; State v. Hohman, 14 Ohio App.3d 142, 470 N.E.2d 162, 164 (1983); Williams v. City of Cleveland, 16 Ohio Law Abs. 289, 289 (1934). Absent a court order, the only way to end a disputed tenancy is if the tenant vacates the apartment of his own accord. Thus, the question of Radvansky's criminal liability under Ohio's burglary statute turns on whether he was a current or former tenant of the Redwood Drive residence on the night of May 15. Viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to Radvansky, we conclude that Radvansky had paid most of the rent for the month of May and was using the Redwood Drive residence at the time to house his personal possessions, clothing, and furniture. Therefore, because Radvansky was a current tenant and had a right to enter and occupy the premises, he could not be found liable for either criminal trespass or burglary.
Several courts, including this one, have noted the unreasonableness of police action predicated solely on a landlord's allegations against a tenant. In the civil context, the United States Supreme Court has stated that police action to assist a tenant's eviction pursuant to a court order would be objectively reasonable but action solely at the behest of a landlord could violate the Fourth Amendment. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 71-72, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992). Similarly, we have held that police officers may not facilitate a landlord's efforts to dispossess tenants absent a judicial eviction order. Thomas v. Cohen, 304 F.3d 563, 577 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1032, 123 S.Ct. 2075, 155 L.Ed.2d 1061 (2003). In concluding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, we stated:
Id. at 581. In the criminal context, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held that statements made by landlords and tenants about domestic disputes are by themselves insufficient to establish probable cause. Seminara v. City of Long Beach, Nos. 93-56395, 93-56512, 1995 WL 598097 (9th Cir. Oct.6, 1995); Hebron v. Touhy, 18 F.3d 421 (7th Cir.1994). In Hebron, the police arrested a landlord based on a complaint made by the tenants that she was depriving them of utility services. Hebron, 18 F.3d at 422. The Seventh Circuit stated that the police "knew that the tenants were being evicted, and the significant chance that they bore a grudge against their landlords would have made it unreasonable — and therefore unconstitutional — to arrest the landlords on the tenants' mere say-so. Having received a report of questionable reliability, the police needed to investigate." Id. at 423. Similarly, in Seminara, a tenant had changed the locks and told the police that his co-tenant had abandoned the apartment. 1995 WL 598097, at *2. The police, relying solely on the tenant's complaint, arrested the co-tenant for burglarizing her house when she broke in to recover her possessions. Id. at *1. The Ninth Circuit stated that "[i]n light of her denials, viewed in the context of an ongoing domestic dispute, the officers bore a duty to conduct some investigation into the credibility of [the tenant]'s accusations before effecting a warrantless arrest [of the co-tenant]." Id. at 3.
Applying these principles to this case and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Radvansky, we conclude that a genuine dispute of material facts exists such that a reasonable jury could find in Radvansky's favor. A reasonable jury could conclude that Telegdy and Saxer relied solely on Rosemark's representations and ignored substantial exculpatory evidence. First, the officers had prior knowledge of the existence of the dispute between Radvansky and Rosemark, and that the dispute concerns the privilege to live in the house. On May 14, the night Radvansky first attempted to gain entrance to the Redwood Drive residence, the police received an unusual call which was sufficient to put both officers on notice that this was an atypical burglary situation.10 That night, Telegdy learned that Radvansky lived at the Redwood Drive residence, but according to Rosemark, had moved out. Telegdy also admitted that he knew that Rosemark and Radvansky were involved in a dispute over money. Saxer conceded that he knew that there was a dispute about entitlement to be in the premises. He stated "that Rosemark was the homeowner asking Mr. Radvansky to leave." J.A. at 1100 (Saxer Dep.). Telegdy was also aware that Radvansky had furniture and personal possessions still inside the house. The following night, the police dispatcher informed Telegdy and Saxer that "the same person from last evening was back." J.A. at 169 (May 15 Police Incident Rep.). Thus, as they were responding to the call on the night of May 15, Telegdy and Saxer knew the following five facts: (i) that there was a dispute between the homeowner and someone who had lived at the residence; (ii) the dispute was over money and the right to live there; (iii) the person still had furniture and personal possessions in the house; (iv) the person had brazenly attempted to break into the house the night before; and (v) the same person had returned on this night.
After discussing the evidence with Gilles,11 the senior officer at the scene, Saxer placed Radvansky under arrest for burglary.12 The sole evidence which supported a charge of criminal trespass, the required element for burglary, was Rosemark's word. In light of the officers' pre-existing knowledge about the dispute between Radvansky and Rosemark, as well as the skeptical view in which statements made by interested parties should be judged, Rosemark's word is not reasonably reliable information which could establish probable cause. Moreover, combined with Radvansky's repeated protestations that he lived there, undisputed documentary evidence which supported that claim and the presence of his personal property, clothing, and furnishings within the house, a reasonable jury could find that Telegdy and Saxer lacked probable cause to arrest Radvansky that night.13
The district court and Appellees rely heavily on several of our prior cases, in which we have held that "[o]nce probable cause is established, an officer is under no duty to investigate further or to look for additional evidence which may exculpate the accused." Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 371. Moreover, we have stated that "[a] policeman ... is under no obligation to give any credence to a suspect's story nor should a plausible explanation in any sense require the officer to forego arrest pending further investigation if the facts as initially discovered provide probable cause." Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 263 (6th Cir.1988). "To hold otherwise would be to allow every suspect, guilty or innocent, to avoid arrest simply by claiming `it wasn't me.'" Id. While these cases stand for the undoubtedly correct proposition that "[t]he Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested," Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979), reliance on them in this instance is misplaced.
The forced entry, however, is certainly sufficient to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which thereby justifies the police in "detain[ing] the suspect briefly to investigate the suspicious circumstances." United States v. Bentley, 29 F.3d 1073, 1075 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1028, 115 S.Ct. 604, 130 L.Ed.2d 515 (1994) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). During a Terry stop, officers may draw their weapons or use handcuffs "so long as circumstances warrant that precaution." Houston v. Clark County Sheriff Deputy John Does 1-5, 174 F.3d 809, 815 (6th Cir.1999). We have previously stated that when a person "was reasonably suspected of having just burglarized a home and might reasonably have been deemed armed and dangerous" the police's use of handcuffs might be justified "as a precautionary measure to secure their safety." United States v. Hurst, 228 F.3d 751, 758 n. 3 (6th Cir.2000).
Having established that a reasonable jury could find that Telegdy and Saxer violated Radvansky's constitutional right, the next steps in the qualified immunity analysis are to determine whether that right is clearly established and whether the officials' actions were objectively unreasonable in light of that right. It is beyond doubt that in 2001 "the law was clearly established that, absent probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed, officers may not arrest an individual." Dietrich v. Burrows, 167 F.3d 1007, 1012 (6th Cir.1999) (finding the probable cause standard to be clearly established in 1991). Moreover, "[t]he law has been clearly established since at least the Supreme Court's decision in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), that probable cause determinations involve an examination of all facts and circumstances within an officer's knowledge at the time of an arrest." Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, the sole remaining issue is whether Radvansky has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that the officers' alleged actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right. We hold that he has.
Radvansky also brought suit against Chief Rice in his individual capacity alleging Rice violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Finding that Rice was not involved in any of the incidents in question, the district court granted summary judgment for Rice on all claims brought against him in his individual capacity. Radvansky failed to address in his brief the grant of summary judgment with respect to Rice. Therefore, we need not review this aspect of the district court's decision here. Radvansky's failure to raise an argument in his appellate brief constitutes a waiver of the argument on appeal. Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 462 (6th Cir.2003).
Similarly, Radvansky brought suit against Detective Caine in his individual capacity alleging Caine violated Radvansky's Fourth Amendment rights. Radvansky relies heavily on the conversation between Caine and Rosemark three weeks prior to the incident, as well as the conversation that Caine had with Radvansky while transporting him to his arraignment the morning after his arrest. The district court granted summary judgment for Caine, finding that Radvansky "had already been booked and was under arrest for Burglary before Det. Caine had any contact with him." J.A. at 70 (Dist. Ct. Order & Decision). We agree with the district court's assessment.
The United States Supreme Court has held that municipalities may be held liable under § 1983 when the injury inflicted is a result of "a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy." Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The Court stated that "a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor-or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory." Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. We, in turn, have noted that "[t]here must be a direct causal link between the policy and the alleged constitutional violation such that the [municipality's] deliberate conduct can be deemed the moving force behind the violation." Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 383 (6th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted). By itself, "the wrongful conduct of a single officer without any policy-making authority did not establish municipal policy." Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 121, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) (discussing Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985)).
In his brief, Radvansky argues that the City's policy of going forward with the criminal process through arraignment and indictment violated his rights. Appellant's Br. at 55. Radvansky contends that the City should have further investigated the matter and released him, rather than proceeded to the preliminary hearing and grand jury indictment.14 Appellant's Br. at 55-56. Radvansky argues that there was an ongoing constitutional violation by the City in not continuing the investigation. The constitutional violation, if any, occurred when Telegdy and Saxer arrested Radvansky, not during the City's standard processing of his felony. To hold otherwise would result in subjecting every officer who processed Radvansky's case to liability for not conducting an independent investigation. It is the arresting officers' responsibility to ensure that the arrest is supported by probable cause. Once Radvansky was arrested, the police are not required to investigate further. The City's procedure is set in place to safeguard an arrestee's constitutional rights, by serving as a check on the police's activities. The City did nothing more than process his case expeditiously, as the Constitution requires.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Supreme Court has stated that this language "embodies the general rule that States must treat like cases alike but may treat unlike cases accordingly." Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 799, 117 S.Ct. 2293, 138 L.Ed.2d 834 (1997). The states cannot make distinctions which either burden a fundamental right, target a suspect class, or intentionally treat one differently from others similarly situated without any rational basis for the difference. Id.; Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam). In his complaint, brief in opposition to summary judgment, and appellate brief, Radvansky has failed to state any way in which the Appellees have burdened a fundamental right, which he was exercising, targeted a suspect class, of which he is a part, or treated him any differently than others similarly situated without any rational basis. "Inasmuch as [appellant] merely alleged that he was treated unfairly as an individual by [appellees'] actions, his equal protection claim was properly dismissed." Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041, 1050 (6th Cir.1999). Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment on this count is affirmed.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Radvansky argues that because he was arrested without probable cause, the Appellees deprived him of his liberty interest without adequate procedural protections. Moreover, Radvansky contends that by not permitting him to enter into the Redwood Drive residence, the Appellees deprived him of his property interest as well. Radvansky's reliance on the Due Process Clause is misplaced, however, because it is the Fourth Amendment which establishes procedural protections in this part of the criminal justice area. The Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he Fourth Amendment was tailored explicitly for the criminal justice system, and its balance between individual and public interests always has been thought to define the `process that is due' for seizures of persons or property in criminal cases, including the detention of suspects pending trial." Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125 n. 27, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). The Court went on to note that "the Fourth Amendment probable cause determination is in fact only the first stage of an elaborate system, unique in jurisprudence, designed to safeguard the rights of those accused of criminal conduct." Id. More recently, the Court has held that the doctrine of incorporation "has substituted, in these areas of criminal procedure, the specific guarantees of the various provisions of the Bill of Rights ... for the more generalized language contained in the earlier cases construing the Fourteenth Amendment." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). Thus, because the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require any additional procedures beyond those mandated by the Fourth Amendment, we conclude that the Appellees are entitled to judgment on this claim as a matter of law. Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment on this count is affirmed.
Radvansky also brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Appellees for violation of his rights established under the Ohio constitution. Section 1983 creates a civil action against any person who subjects "any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 codified the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the purpose of which was "to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Monell, 436 U.S. at 665, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (quoting H.R. 320). The Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, were passed following the end of the Civil War to ensure that the rights of citizens secured by the federal Constitution were upheld by all the states. Neither the Act nor the Amendment addresses the rights secured to citizens by the individual state constitutions. Accordingly, a claimed violation of a state constitutional right is not cognizable under § 1983. See Benn v. Universal Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 174 (3d Cir.2004) ("Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state statutes."); Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir.1994) (holding that a violation of a state constitutional right does not give rise to a federal cause of action under § 1983); Bills v. Henderson, 631 F.2d 1287, 1298-99 (6th Cir.1980) (concluding that violation of a state procedural rule is not actionable in a § 1983 suit). Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment on these two counts is affirmed.
Section 1985(3) prohibits a conspiracy "for the purpose of depriving either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1985. To prevail on a § 1985(3) claim, one must prove "'(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities of the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.'" Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509, 518 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29, 103 S.Ct. 3352, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983)). Moreover, the Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means there must be some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' actions." Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). In his complaint, brief in opposition to summary judgment, and appellate brief, Radvansky has failed to allege any facts sufficient to establish a conspiracy claim under § 1985(3). Radvansky has produced no evidence to demonstrate his arrest on the night of May 15 was in any way motivated by racial or other class-based animus. See Bass, 167 F.3d at 1051 (upholding dismissal of plaintiff's conspiracy claim, finding failure to show that police officers' use of excessive force was motivated by any invidious class-based animus). Because Radvansky has not demonstrated either a conspiracy or invidiously discriminatory animus, the district court's grant of summary judgment with regards to the § 1985 count is affirmed.
Section 1986 establishes a cause of action against anyone, who has knowledge of a conspiracy under § 1985, and "having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do." 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Radvansky argues that because "Appellees all had knowledge of the wrongful acts, liability is imposed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986." Appellant's Br. at 59. But "[w]here plaintiff has stated no cause of action under § 1985, no cause of action exists under § 1986." Braley v. City of Pontiac, 906 F.2d 220, 227 (6th Cir.1990). Because Radvansky failed to establish a cause of action under § 1985, the district court's grant of summary judgment with regards to the § 1986 count is also affirmed.
Ohio provides statutory immunity for its political subdivisions and their employees in civil actions seeking "to recover damages for injury, death or loss to person or property allegedly caused by any act or omission in connection with a governmental or proprietary function" in certain circumstances. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2744.03(A). Specifically, an employee is immune from liability unless his actions were "manifestly outside the scope of [his] employment," or "were with malicious purpose,15 in bad faith,16 or in a wanton17 or reckless manner."18 Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2744.03(A)(6)(a) & (b). The Ohio courts have found that even where a police officer's actions violate the arrestee's constitutional rights, the officer is not necessarily subject to tort liability. Where the officer's conduct is "not as thorough as it could have been," his conduct is merely negligent, which is insufficient "to remove the cloak of immunity." Boyd v. Village of Lexington, No. 01-CA-64, 2002 WL 416016, at *6 (Ohio Ct.App. Mar. 14, 2002)
Under this statutory framework, Telegdy and Saxer are entitled to immunity against Radvansky's false arrest/imprisonment claims. Radvansky has not produced any evidence to support a finding that Telegdy and Saxer acted with the intent to harm him or with any ulterior motive. There was neither a complete lack of care nor an intentional deviation from a definite rule of conduct. Telegdy and Saxer did not investigate as thoroughly as they should have. Such negligence is insufficient to remove the cloak of immunity under state law. Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment on the false arrest/imprisonment count is affirmed.19
The district court found that the officers had no discretion in prosecuting Radvansky and therefore, could not be held liable for maliciously instigating the criminal process.20 The district court concluded that Radvansky's prosecution was the result of the prosecutor's uncontrolled discretion.21 Under Ohio law, police officers will not be held liable for the instigation of criminal proceedings, where they provide the prosecutor with "a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts as revealed by [their] investigation, including [the accused's] exculpatory statements." Robbins v. Fry, 72 Ohio App.3d 360, 594 N.E.2d 700, 701 (1991). Once they have done that, in spite of their investigative activities, the officers' status in the prosecution is "no more than that of witness or informant." Id. An informant, who is usually immune from liability for malicious prosecution, may lose his protected status," however, when the informer provides false information or the informer demonstrates a desire, direction, request or pressure for the initiation of criminal proceedings." Id. at 702.
J.A. at 591 (Burland Dep.). Regardless of whether Burland was given complete information of the events surrounding Radvansky's arrest, none of the Appellees were responsible for his misconceptions. The only person with whom Burland spoke that night was Gilles, who is not a party to this suit. Saxer's incident report, upon which Burland relied, is factually accurate and contains Radvansky's exculpatory statements. Telegdy never spoke to Burland the night of May 15 or afterwards. Neither Telegdy nor Saxer testified before the grand jury. With regards to Caine, although we find it troubling that he wanted to prosecute Radvansky "to cover [the police] against any lawsuit," it is clear from his testimony that he filed the criminal complaint at the direction of Burland. J.A. at 693-94, 669-70 (Caine Dep.). Burland was the one who determined the charge and left a note on the case file telling Caine what charge to file with the courts. Caine did not even speak to the prosecutors about the case until he found out it was being dismissed. Thus, because none of the Appellees were actually involved with the prosecutor's determination of what charge to file, they cannot be found liable for maliciously instigating the criminal process against Radvansky. Therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment to Appellees on the malicious prosecution claims is hereby affirmed.22
3. Other State-Law Claims
"Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a) requires that an appellant's brief include `a statement of the issues presented for review,' and `[a]n argument' on each issue presented."23 Bickel v. Korean Air Lines Co., 96 F.3d 151, 153 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1093, 117 S.Ct. 770, 136 L.Ed.2d 716 (1997) (quoting Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)) (alteration in original). "An appellant waives an issue when he fails to present it in his initial briefs before this court." Marks, 342 F.3d at 462; see also Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 403 n. 18 (6th Cir.1999) (en banc). Accordingly, because Radvansky has effectively waived these claims by not presenting any argument about them, we need not reach the issue of whether the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees on these claims was proper.
Radvansky has claimed throughout the litigation that his tenancy was pursuant to an oral lease agreement. Appellant's Br. at 5; Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 280 (Pl's Br. Opp. Summ. J.); J.A. at 817 (Pl.Dep.); J.A. at 1014 (Pl's Resp. to Defs' Interrogs.). Under Ohio law, however, a lease agreement must be in writing to be enforceable. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1335.04;Manifold v. Schuster, 67 Ohio App.3d 251, 586 N.E.2d 1142, 1144 (1990). Relying on a 1927 Ohio Court of Appeals case, Radvansky has argued that the oral lease is enforceable through the doctrine of part performance, because he paid rent and took possession of the property. J.A. at 293 (Pl's Br. Opp. Summ. J.). More recently, however, Ohio courts have stated that "partial performance will not take a parol agreement out of the Statute of Frauds without a showing of detrimental reliance by the party arguing partial performance, or an unconscionable advantage obtained by the party raising the statute." Manifold, 586 N.E.2d at 1144-45. Thus, "[a] party fails to establish partial performance through evidence of possession and payment of rent alone." Weishaar v. Strimbu, 76 Ohio App.3d 276, 601 N.E.2d 587, 592 (1991). Therefore, under Ohio law, a valid lease agreement did not exist between Rosemark and Radvansky. The point is somewhat academic however, because a party who takes possession under an invalid lease creates a tenancy at will, which "converts to a periodic tenancy upon payment and acceptance of rent." Id.; Manifold, 586 N.E.2d at 1145. The frequency of the rental payments determines the period of the tenancy. Weishaar, 601 N.E.2d at 593; Manifold, 586 N.E.2d at 1145-46. In this case, Radvansky paid rent monthly, which was accepted by Rosemark, thus creating a month-to-month periodic tenancy governed by Ohio landlord-tenant law. Sherwin v. Cabana Club Apartments, 70 Ohio App.2d 11, 433 N.E.2d 932, 936 (1980). Under Ohio law, a landlord must give a tenant notice of termination of a periodic tenancy and most importantly, may not resort to self-help measures to remove the tenant from the premises. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 5321.17; § 5321.15. "[A] rental agreement between landlord and tenant is a contract; and, whether written or oral, each party has certain contractual rights and obligations established and guaranteed by R.C. Chapter 5321." Colquett v. Byrd, 59 Ohio Misc. 45, 392 N.E.2d 1328, 1330 (1979); see also Thomas v. Papadelis, 16 Ohio App.3d 359, 476 N.E.2d 726, 728 (1984) (concluding that a lease provision inconsistent with R.C. Chapter 5321 is unconscionable); Laster v. Bowman, 52 Ohio App.2d 379, 370 N.E.2d 767, 770 (1977) (holding that the "rights, obligations and remedies" encompassed in R.C. Chapter 5321 are implied in all rental agreements between a landlord and tenant).
Radvansky owned two guns which he kept in his locked bedroom. He stated at his deposition that he was worried that someone might break into his bedroom to get the guns and either sell or use them. J.A. at 840, 855 (Radvansky Dep.)
Sergeant Gilles was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit
Telegdy stated in his deposition that when the officers left that night, they were not aware that any guns were involved in the situation. J.A. at 1179-80 (Telegdy Dep.)
Specifically, Radvansky alleged § 1983 claims on the basis of the deprivation of: (1) equal protection; (2) due process, (3) the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (4) the right to protect one's property; and (5) the right to liberty, health, safety, privacy, and welfare. J.A. at 21-24 (Complaint)
These included false imprisonment, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious criminal prosecution, assault and battery, negligence, and replevin. J.A. at 26-31 (Complaint). The replevin claim was brought only against Rosemark
Rosemark is not involved in this appeal
Appellees in their brief cite toHerder, 415 N.E.2d at 1003, for the proposition that "it is possible for a person to commit a trespass with respect to property of which he is the owner or part owner." Though that case actually reached the opposite result, the proposition was later adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court when it overruled Herder. State v. Lilly, 87 Ohio St.3d 97, 717 N.E.2d 322, 325 n. 1 (1999). These cases are inapposite to the one here because they involve criminal charges brought against a former spouse trespassing on property, of which he was the sole or part title owner. Id. at 325. In finding that an ex-spouse could be held criminally liable for trespassing on his own property, the state supreme court held that "[b]ecause the purpose of burglary law is to protect the dweller, we hold that custody and control, rather than legal title, is dispositive." Id. at 327. "Thus, in Ohio, one can commit a trespass and burglary against property of which one is the legal owner if another has control or custody of that property." Id. That proposition, which was novel in the marital setting, is unremarkable in the landlord-tenant context. See State v. Brisbin, No. 54921, 1989 WL 12918, at *4 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 16, 1989) (holding that despite the fact that she owned the building, a landlord may be convicted of criminal trespass if she enters a tenant's residence during the term of the periodic tenancy without permission). A tenant's only property interest is a possessory interest, which by definition is "custody and control" of the property. Egner v. Egner, 24 Ohio App.3d 171, 493 N.E.2d 999, 1002 (Ohio Ct.App.1985). Because "trespass is an invasion of the possessory interest" and "a tenant [is] entitled to the possessory interest," a tenant cannot be liable for trespass. Harper, 1994 WL 81983, at *2.
Telegdy stated that he thought that "[i]f that person lived there and they knew the neighbor well enough to go over and borrow a knife to break into their own house, why would they be calling the police?" J.A. at 1168 (Telegdy Dep.). Saxer stated that "[t]he whole call seemed a little strange to [him]." J.A. at 1095 (Saxer Dep.)
Though Gilles was the senior officer at the scene, Telegdy and Saxer were the main investigating officers, and Saxer was the one who arrested Radvansky. J.A. at 775 (Gilles Dep.); 1138-39A (Saxer Dep.). It should be noted that Gilles also had prior knowledge of the dispute between Rosemark and Radvansky. Caine had told Gilles two weeks prior to the break-in that there was "a civil problem with Mr. Radvansky, as far as payment" and that Caine advised Rosemark to post a note if he changed the locks. J.A. at 732-37 (Gilles Dep.). Gilles also responded with Telegdy the night of May 14 and was the officer who spoke to Rosemark. Radvansky did not include Gilles in his complaint, but Saxer consulted Gilles prior to placing Radvansky under arrest
The district court noted that Telegdy and Saxer had probable cause to arrest Radvansky for a number of crimes, including burglary, breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. J.A. at 67. We have held that "knowledge of the precise crime committed is not necessary to a finding of probable cause provided that probable cause exists showing that a crime was committed by the defendants."United States v. Anderson, 923 F.2d 450, 457 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 980, 111 S.Ct. 1633, 113 L.Ed.2d 729 (1991). All the crimes cited by the district court, however, involve either trespass or unprivileged activity. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2911.12(A)(1) (defining burglary as "[n]o person, by force, stealth or deception, shall ... trespass in an occupied structure" ...); § 2911.13(A) (defining breaking and entering as "[n]o person by force, stealth, or deception shall trespass in an unoccupied structure" ...); § 2911.21(A) (defining criminal trespass as "[n]o person without privilege to do so" ...); § 2909.07(A)(1) (defining criminal mischief as "[n]o person shall without privilege to do so" ...) (emphasis added). Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that the police should have known Radvansky was a current tenant entitled to "custody and control" of the Redwood Drive residence, whether there was probable cause to arrest Radvansky for any of these other crimes is a disputed material fact as well.
Appellees argue in their brief that the subsequent indictment of Radvansky by the grand jury conclusively establishes probable cause for the arrest. Appellees' Br. at 20. In a situation where the arrest of the plaintiff waspursuant to a grand jury indictment, "the finding of an indictment, fair upon its face, by a properly constituted grand jury, conclusively determines the existence of probable cause for the purpose of holding the accused to answer." Higgason v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868, 877 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting Ex Parte United States, 287 U.S. 241, 250, 53 S.Ct. 129, 77 L.Ed. 283 (1932)). By contrast, neither the Supreme Court, nor this court, has ever held that a subsequent grand jury indictment can establish probable cause for an earlier arrest. See Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 261, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960) (evaluating probable cause based on the circumstances at the time of arrest despite the fact that the defendant was later indicted by a federal grand jury); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 487, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958) (holding that in the absence of a prior indictment, probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint); United States v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Cir.2004) (analyzing probable cause to arrest based on evidence before the warrant-issuing magistrate judge even though the defendant was later indicted by a grand jury); United States v. Bartholomew, 310 F.3d 912, 919 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1177, 123 S.Ct. 1005, 154 L.Ed.2d 923 (2003) (assessing the existence of probable cause to arrest a later-indicted defendant based on the facts that police knew at the time of arrest); see also Smith v. Thornburg, 136 F.3d 1070, 1077 (6th Cir.1998) (concluding that police had probable cause to arrest the suspect despite the fact that he was not indicted later by a grand jury). What we have previously held implicitly, we now state explicitly — after-the-fact grand jury involvement cannot serve to validate a prior arrest. See Garmon v. Lumpkin County, 878 F.2d 1406, 1409 (11th Cir.1989) ("A subsequent indictment does not retroactively provide probable cause for an arrest that has already taken place.").
Burland stated at his deposition that the procedure in Olmsted Falls is that the processing of felonies is either through a preliminary hearing in Berea Municipal Court or a grand jury indictment in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. J.A. at 622-23 (Burland Dep.). Burland explained that felonies are filed simultaneously in Berea Municipal Court and Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court as a way to process them as quickly as possible. In this case, Radvansky had a preliminary hearing in Berea Municipal Court, where he requested an attorney to represent him. The preliminary hearing was continued until an attorney could be assigned. Before the second preliminary hearing could take place, the grand jury in Cuyahoga County returned an indictment against him for burglary
Ohio courts have defined malice as "the willful and intentional design to do injury or the intention or desire to harm another, usually seriously, through conduct which is unlawful or unjustified."Boyd v. Village of Lexington, No. 01-CA-64, 2002 WL 416016, at *6 (Ohio Ct.App. Mar. 14, 2002).
Bad faith is defined as involving "a dishonest purpose, conscious wrongdoing, the breach of a known duty through some ulterior motive or ill will, as in the nature of fraud, or an actual intent to mislead or deceive another."Id.
Wanton is defined as "the failure to exercise any care whatsoever."Id.
Finally, reckless is defined as the "intentional deviation from a clear duty or from a definite rule of conduct."Id.
The district court's grant of summary judgment with regards to appellees Rice and Caine is also affirmed, because neither one had any involvement in the arrest of Radvansky. Furthermore, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City is also affirmed, as the City is statutorily immune from liability for false arrest/imprisonment under Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2744.03(A)(3)
Radvansky brought a malicious prosecution claim against all the Appellees. Specifically, he brought the claim against Telegdy and Saxer as the arresting officers and Caine for his role in the prosecution. Telegdy and Saxer turned all their evidence over to Caine after Radvansky was booked. Caine actually filed the criminal complaint against Radvansky, formally initiating the criminal process. J.A. at 419 (criminal complaint). Finally, Caine was also the only person to testify before the Cuyahoga Grand Jury which indicted Radvansky for burglary
The district court criticized Radvansky for failing to include "the county prosecutor who initiated the Grand Jury proceedings." J.A. at 73 (Dist. Ct. Order & Decision). Under Ohio law, however, "prosecutors are considered quasi-judicial officers entitled to the same absolute immunity granted judges, when their activities are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process."Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 453 N.E.2d 693, 695 (1983) (internal citation omitted). "A prosecutor has absolute immunity in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case." Id. (internal citation omitted).
Rice did not have any involvement in the prosecution of Radvansky, and therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment with regards to him is affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City is also affirmed, because the City is statutorily immune from liability for malicious prosecution under Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2744.03(A)(3)
Specifically, Fed. R.App. P. 28(a) states that an appellant's briefmust contain, under subsection (5), "a statement of the issues presented for review," and under subsection (9)(A), "the argument, which must contain ... appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies." Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(5), (9)(A) (emphasis added).