Opinion ID: 2809264
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Price’s Malicious-Prosecution Claim

Text: The district court held that Price failed to meet the “no probable cause” requirement for malicious prosecution because “Lucas had probable cause to pursue charges against Price . . . .” Price, 2013 WL 1303783, at . While “[i]n section 1983 cases, the existence of probable cause usually poses a jury question,” Painter v. Robertson, 185 F.3d 557, 570 (6th Cir. 1999), the Defendants argue that, because Lucas did not recklessly or knowingly make false statements in his grand-jury testimony, the grand jury’s indictment against Price established probable cause as a matter of law. See United States’s Br. (14-3444) at 25-26. We disagree for two reasons. First, Bray’s 2007 statements to OIG establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lucas lied in his grand-jury testimony regarding the existence of probable cause. According to these statements, while Lucas was driving Bray from South Adams Street to Glessner Avenue to buy drugs from “Price’s girl,” Bray whispered to Lucas that the drug dealer they would soon meet was actually a friend of Bray, rather than Price’s agent. Lucas told Bray to turn off the recording device he was wearing and allegedly approved the sham drug deal. The Defendants again argue that we should not credit Bray’s initial allegations because Bray recanted them at Lucas’s criminal trial. But for the same reasons as articulated in subsection III.B.2.a.i of Nos. 14-3443/3444 Webb, et al. v. United States, et al. Page 22 this opinion, the issue of whether Bray was telling the truth in his 2007 statements to OIG investigators or in his 2010 testimony at Lucas’s trial is a question of fact for the jury. Second, it remains a genuine issue of material fact whether it was objectively reasonable for Lucas to mistakenly identify English as Price. Price presented evidence that he looks nothing like English. The most obvious difference is size. Whereas Price was 5’8” tall, English stood 6’2”. Lucas’s DEA-6 report lists Price as being 5’10” tall. In Webb’s situation, the stand-in was sitting inside a car. Here, Lucas saw English standing next to Bray, who was 5’9” tall, at 2:30 in the afternoon. A person who stood between 5’8” and 5’10” in height would have appeared to be approximately the same height as Bray. English would have appeared significantly taller. Further, Lucas looked at a photograph of Price immediately after the drug deal and still confirmed that it was Price who met Bray on South Adams Street. Other than the fact that both were black males, nothing suggests that Price’s photograph resembled English. Accordingly, it remains an issue of material fact whether it was objectively reasonable for Lucas to have confused the two of them. See Gray, 150 F.3d at 582. Drawing factual inferences in Price’s favor, Lucas’s grand-jury testimony contained knowing or reckless falsehoods and so we cannot conclude on summary judgment that the indictment provided a basis for probable cause to prosecute Price. The remaining evidence against Price came from Bray’s information and the drugs seized at the November 10, 2005, search of Price’s home. Neither supports probable cause to prosecute Price. Bray’s information cannot establish probable cause because he was an unreliable informant. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 232. The drugs seized at the November 10, 2005, search may provide probable cause to believe that Price committed some drug offense. But “[p]robable cause to prosecute exists [only] when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the accused committed the particular offense with which he is charged.” Mott, 524 F. App’x at 187. Because the search of Price’s home took place the day after he was charged, evidence seized therein could not have furnished probable cause to charge him for the crime at issue here. See id. at 188. Accordingly, a reasonable jury could conclude that Price meets the “no probable cause” element of malicious prosecution. Nos. 14-3443/3444 Webb, et al. v. United States, et al. Page 23 ii. Whether Each Defendant Participated in the Decision to Prosecute Webb There is no question that Lucas participated in the decision to prosecute Price because Lucas testified against Price before the grand jury and “[b]ecause it is undisputed that the [Assistant] U.S. Attorney indicated he relied almost exclusively on Lucas’s testimony, Reports and conversations” in deciding to bring charges against Price. Price, 2013 WL 1303783, at . The district court concluded that Price “cannot show [that the remaining individual Defendants] played any significant role in the decision to prosecute Price.” Ibid. Price does not oppose the grants of summary judgment to Cross, Mayer, and Ansari, Price’s Br. at 61, and so we review the district court’s conclusion only with respect to Faith, Metcalf, and Verhiley.  RCSO Captain Faith and Detective Metcalf According to Lucas, Faith and Metcalf told him that they had observed Price previously and were familiar with his face. Lucas’s Br. (14-3444) at 12. After the October 25, 2005, drug deal, Lucas stated that both Faith and Metcalf identified Price as the suspect who met with Bray, and Lucas relied on their representations in good faith to identify Price as the suspect in his DEA-6 report and grand-jury testimony. Ibid. Metcalf denies identifying Price for Lucas, Metcalf’s Br. (14-3444) at 10, and Faith argues that “[i]t was Lucas, not Faith, who personally identified Price as the person who met with the confidential informant.” Faith’s Br. (14-3444) at 16. The question of who misidentified Price is one for the jury. At this stage, Lucas’s testimony that he relied on Faithʼs and Metcalf’s false identifications establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Metcalf and Faith influenced Lucas’s grand-jury testimony and thereby aided in the decision to prosecute Price. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grants of summary judgment to Faith and Metcalf.  DEA Task Force Officer Verhiley Price does not dispute Verhiley’s assertion that he played no role in monitoring Bray’s phone calls to set up the fake drug buy, observing the deal itself, or identifying Price as a participant in the deal. Price argues only that Verhiley was a part of the broader Operation Turnaround conspiracy. Though Price may demonstrate that his rights were violated by some Operation Turnaround participants, he cannot show that Verhiley was personally involved. See Nos. 14-3443/3444 Webb, et al. v. United States, et al. Page 24 Robertson, 753 F 3d at 615. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Verhiley. 2. False Arrest “A false arrest claim under federal law requires a plaintiff to prove that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.” Voyticky v. Vill. of Timberlake, 412 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2005). Probable cause is a defense to false arrest. Walker v. Schaeffer, 854 F.2d 138, 142 (6th Cir. 1988). The district court granted summary judgment against Webb and Price because it found that there was probable cause to arrest them on account of their grandjury indictments. See Price, 2013 WL 1303783, at ; Webb, 2013 WL 1303776, at . Webb was arrested on November 9, 2005, by Lucas and two other law-enforcement officers who are no longer parties to this lawsuit. The question of whether Lucas had probable cause to believe that Webb had committed a crime remains a question of fact. Lucas cannot claim that he relied in good faith on the indictment to arrest Webb because, to the extent that the indictment was invalid, Lucas was responsible for the defects. Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 758 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Police officers cannot, in good faith, rely on a judicial determination of probable cause [to absolve them of liability] when that determination was premised on an officer’s own material misrepresentations to the court.”). Therefore, Lucas is not entitled to qualified immunity. Webb does not allege that any of the other law-enforcement Defendants were at the scene of his arrest or that any of them implicitly authorized the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate. Therefore, Cross, Metcalf, Mayer, Faith, and Ansari are entitled to summary judgment as to Webb’s false-arrest claim. Price was arrested on November 10, 2005, by United States Marshals and an unnamed detective. Price argues that the Defendants “deliberately and willfully caused [his] wrongful arrest.” But neither his complaint nor his brief alleges that any of the Defendants actively participated in his false arrest, and Price does not allege that they implicitly authorized their subordinates to falsely arrest him. Therefore, all individual Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Price’s false-arrest claim. Nos. 14-3443/3444 Webb, et al. v. United States, et al. Page 25