Opinion ID: 2982878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Qualified Immunity as to Pocek

Text: In a § 1983 action, each defendant’s liability must be individually assessed to ensure that no defendant is improperly held liable for the conduct of another. See Pollard v. City of Columbus, 780 F.3d 395, 402 (6th Cir. 2015). We begin by assessing Pocek’s liability and find -5- No. 14-3875 Philip Apsey v. Chester Township his participation in the day’s events insufficient to render him liable as a matter of law. “Pocek’s contribution to the arrest,” Appellee Br. at 32, appears to be helping with the initial stop of Apsey’s pickup, standing by the pickup while Brickman questioned Apsey, and then contacting the daycare, (R. 44, Page ID # 374). That conduct alone did not violate the Constitution. There was probable cause to stop the pickup since, on this record, Apsey did cross the yellow line and, to the extent Apsey claims Pocek is liable by not stopping Brickman’s arrest of Apsey, see Appellee Br. at 31, that claim fails because the record clearly shows Brickman had probable cause to arrest Apsey. See infra at Part IV.A. For these reasons, we reverse the denial of qualified immunity to Pocek on both the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.