Court Opinion

ID: 9484080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:39:56.863793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:00.467411
License: Public Domain

BOGGS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
As the court correctly points out, Montgomery County cannot be not liable, under the facts of this case, for availing itself of the opportunity in Ohio law to contract for shared jail space.
This opinion does not enable authorities to slough off their responsibility or perform a “shell game” with the legal ownership of prisons. Montgomery County certainly could be held liable to the extent that it had knowledge about or direction of the policies being carried out by the city under its contract, or to the extent that it was deliberately indifferent to what those policies were.
In this particular case, it is unfortunate that counsel for the plaintiffs did not properly investigate the legal identity of the actors who performed the strip searches, and apparently did not file suit until two days before the expiration of two years from the incident. Plaintiffs were thus apparently unable to take advantage of the information that was presented in Montgomery County’s answer. However, poor lawyering cannot create liability on behalf of an entity, Montgomery County, that did not violate its duties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I therefore concur in the court’s opinion.