Opinion ID: 2971626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: The magistrate judge correctly granted summary judgment on all of Feinthel’s claims.1 As an initial matter, the Montgomery Police Department is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action, and Feinthel’s claims against it must be construed as identical to his claims against the City of 1 As the magistrate judge granted summary judgment on all federal claims, she could permissibly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). See Brandenburg v. Hous. Auth. of Irvine, 253 F.3d 891, 900 (6th Cir. 2001). 3 Montgomery. See Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 472 (1985). Summary judgment must be granted on these claims against the city, because Feinthel has made no showing of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injuries were the result of a policy or custom of the city. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978). Summary judgment was also proper on Feinthel’s claims against the individual officers. In regard to his illegal search and seizure claims, both the initial seizure (arguably when Feinthel was directed to pick his cigarette up) and the protective weapons search (when the revolver was taken from Feinthel) were reasonable under the standards set out in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-22 (1968). Feinthel presented no evidence contradicting the officers’ sworn statements that they had been informed of Feinthel’s threat to Kriegel and the young people. The officers’ knowledge of this threat was itself sufficient to justify this de minimis seizure. See id. at 21. The threat, combined with Payne’s observation of a weapon-like object concealed under Feinthel’s clothing, Feinthel’s refusal to tell the officers whether he had a weapon, and Feinthel’s initiation of physical contact with the officers, was sufficient to justify the protective weapons search leading to the discovery of the revolver. See id. at 26; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145-48 (1972).2 As to the wrongful arrest claim, summary judgment must be granted if the police officers had probable cause to arrest Feinthel. Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 851 (6th Cir. 2003). The officers did have probable cause in this case, because there was a “fair probability” that Feinthel had committed the offense of using weapons while intoxicated in violation of OHIO REV. CODE § 2923.15. See Feathers, 319 F.3d at 851. Feinthel admitted to the officers that he had been 2 Feinthel’s reliance on United States v. Casado, 303 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2002), is misplaced. In Casado, the individual being searched “had made no sudden or violent movements at any point during the encounter,” and the officers involved were fully in control of the situation. Id. at 448. That is not the situation in Feinthel’s case. 4 drinking, and the officers then discovered a firearm on his person. This was sufficient to justify an arrest for using weapons while intoxicated. See OHIO REV. CODE § 2923.15(A) (“No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.”) (emphases added).3 Summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was proper on the excessive force claim. To defeat qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) a genuine issue of fact as to whether a constitutional violation occurred; (2) that such a violation involved a clearly established constitutional right; and (3) a genuine issue of fact as to whether the official’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established right. Feathers, 319 F.3d at 848. Feinthel has satisfied the first two aspects of this test, as a reasonable jury could conclude that the force used was excessive, and a right to be free from use of excessive force is a clearly established constitutional right. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 392-99 (1989). However, Feinthel has failed to demonstrate a jury question as to whether the officers were unreasonable to believe that they could use the amount of force that they did. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205-07 (2001). The officers had come out to investigate a threatened shooting, they saw what appeared to be a weapon under Feinthel’s shirt, and Feinthel gave an evasive answer when asked whether he had a weapon and then attempted to brush the officers aside. Under these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable for the officers to believe they could use the force they did in arresting Feinthel.