Opinion ID: 2746010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assault & Battery

Text: To succeed on an assault claim Plaintiff must allege (1) “a willful threat,” or (2) an attempted offensive touching that reasonably places another “in fear of such contact.” VasquezPalafox, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51626, at  (N.D. Ohio April 10, 2013) (citing Kaylor v. 10 No. 14-3093 Rankin, 356 F. Supp.2d 839, 853 (N.D. Ohio 2005).4 When an individual is arrested pursuant to a facially valid warrant, no assault or battery has occurred. Hale v. Vance, 267 F. Supp. 2d 725, 736 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (noting that “police officer[s] effectuating a stop . . . [are] privileged to make physical contact”). Plaintiff failed to state a claim because no federal officer participated in the arrest and the facts, as alleged, suggest no more contact with Plaintiff than would be privileged in the context of an officer effectuating an arrest and the booking procedures that followed. 3. Negligent or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress A complaint for negligent infliction of emotional distress must allege that “the plaintiff was placed in fear of physical consequences to his or her own person.” Heiner v. Moretuzzo, 652 N.E.2d 664, 669 (Ohio 1995). This fear must be based on the threat of “actual physical peril.” Id. We do not contest that Plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress. Based on the facts alleged, a lack of due diligence in the agent’s and officer’s investigation, which led to Plaintiff’s mistaken arrest, is the actual and proximate cause of her anguish. But being fingerprinted, handcuffed, strip searched, and forced to take a DNA swab are typical, if not standard booking procedures. Thus, Plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because she was not placed in “actual physical peril.” Likewise, Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot survive a 12(b)(6) motion because she neither alleges intentional nor extreme and outrageous conduct, both of which are necessary elements under Ohio law. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 377 (6th Cir. 1995). 4 Ohio law has a separate tort for battery, which attaches civil liability to the actual act of offensive touching. 11 No. 14-3093