“Pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.”
How later courts described this case
- “Pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal construction of their pleadings and filings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
:
JOSEPH CLAYTON SWANEY, :
: CASE NO. 5:20-cv-00517
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. : OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. 26]
DETECTIVE MARINO, ET AL., :
:
Defendants. :
:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Swaney sues Kent Police Department Detective Marino, Detective
Gormsen, and Lieutenant Short.1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth
Amendment rights by searching him for weapons during an arrest and by strip searching
him during a jail booking.2
Defendants now move for summary judgment.3 Plaintiff did not produce any
evidence, respond to discovery requests, or respond to the summary judgment motion.4
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s summary judgment
motion.
I. Background
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging Fourth Amendment violations during a
2019 arrest and jail booking.5 Plaintiff alleged that the weapons search during his arrest
violated his rights because the frisk of his genital area caused “great discomfort and
1 Doc. 1 at 2-3, 5.
2 Doc. 3 at 2-3.
3 Doc. 26.
4 Doc. 26-3 (Williams Declaration) at ¶¶ 4-7.
embarrassment.”6 Plaintiff also alleged that police violated the Fourth Amendment by
requiring Plaintiff to remove his clothing when police booked Plaintiff into jail.7
Plaintiff sued the City of Kent, the Kent Police Department, Detective Marino,
Detective Gormsen, and Lieutenant Short. This Court dismissed the claims against the City
of Kent and the Kent Police Department but allowed the case to proceed against
Defendants Marino, Gormsen, and Short in their individual capacities.8
According to the police report, police arrested Plaintiff Swaney while investigating
rape allegations.9 The alleged victim reported Plaintiff Swaney as the perpetrator and
identified Plaintiff as her assailant shortly after the alleged assault occurred.10 The victim
gave Plaintiff’s description. She reported that she knew Plaintiff because they went to high
school together and had known each other most of their lives.11
After interviewing the alleged victim, officers found and arrested Plaintiff Swaney.12
An officer patted Plaintiff down for weapons before arresting him.13
In a sworn declaration, Detective Marino describes Plaintiff Swaney’s jail booking
process.14 Detective Marino says that while Plaintiff Swaney was awaiting booking,
Detectives Marino and Gormsen and Lieutenant Short instructed Plaintiff to remove his
clothing to change into a jail uniform.15 Detective Marino said that he did not touch
6 Doc. 3 at 2.
7 at 3.
8 Doc. 11 at 1.
9 Doc. 26-1 (Police Report) at 2.
10
11 at 2, 4.
12 at 3.
13
14 Doc. 26-2 (Marino Declaration).
15 at ¶¶ 5-6.
Plaintiff and he did not see Detective Gormsen or Lieutenant Short touch Plaintiff, either.16
Eight months after his arrest, Plaintiff Swaney filed this suit. After filing the lawsuit,
Plaintiff Swaney did not respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.17 He also did not
produce any evidence before this Court.
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s request for admissions.18 By not responding
to the requests within 30 days, Plaintiff established the truth of certain facts for purposes of
this case.19 Among other admissions, Plaintiff admitted that he was instructed to change
into a jail uniform and that no Defendants touched him while he was changing.20 Plaintiff
also admitted that after changing into the jail uniform, he was placed into the general jail
population.21
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion for summary judgment.
II. Legal Standard
A party is entitled to summary judgment if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.”22 A genuine issue of material fact exists where “a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party” based on the evidence.23
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all evidence in the
16 at ¶¶ 11-12.
17 Doc. 26-3 (Williams Declaration) at ¶¶ 5-9.
18 at ¶¶ 5-8.
19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.
20 Doc. 26 at 4-5.
21 at 5.
22 , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quotation marks omitted).
23 , 880 F.3d 256, 262 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting , 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986)).
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.24 The nonmoving party “must show sufficient
evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact”25 as to each of the claim’s required
elements.26 But, summary judgment is still appropriate “[i]f the evidence is merely
colorable . . . or is not significantly probative.”27
pleadings are liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than
counsel-drafted pleadings.28 The Court reads Plaintiff’s filings generously to determine his
claims’ legal underpinnings.
III. Discussion
a. Plaintiff’s Non-Response to the Summary Judgment Motion
A moving party’s burden to prevail on summary judgment does not change when
the non-moving party fails to respond to the motion.29 When the non-moving party does
not respond to a summary judgment motion, the court must “intelligently and carefully
review the legitimacy” of the motion and “review carefully those portions of the submitted
evidence designated by the moving party.”30 This task requires considering “the possibility
of evidentiary misstatements presented by the moving party,” while avoiding advocacy for
the non-moving party.31
b. Plaintiff’s Lack of Evidence
Plaintiff did not produce any evidence in support of his claims. Plaintiff did not file
24 , 506 F.3d 496, 500–01 (6th Cir. 2007).
25 at 501 (citation omitted).
26 (noting that a scintilla of evidence is not enough to defeat a summary judgment motion).
27 , 477 U.S. at 249–50.
28 , 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Pro se plaintiffs enjoy the benefit of a liberal
construction of their pleadings and filings.”).
29 , 980 F.2d 399, 410 (6th Cir. 1992).
30 at 407, 410.
31
a verified complaint or offer any other authenticated documents. Because his complaint
and initial motions were not authenticated, they cannot serve as evidence at the summary
judgment stage.32
When the opposing party files a properly supported motion for summary judgment,
“the non-moving party ‘cannot rest solely on the allegations made in [his] pleadings’ but
‘must set forth by affidavits or otherwise specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.’”33
The Sixth Circuit has held that the “failure to present any evidence to counter a well-
supported motion for summary judgment alone is grounds for granting the motion.”34
c. Qualified Immunity
Even if Plaintiff had offered sufficient evidence in support of his allegations,
qualified immunity would apply to the police officers’ conduct.
Police had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Swaney.
“An officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect when the facts and circumstances
within the officer’s knowledge . . . are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of
reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.”35
The alleged victim’s statement to police provided probable cause for Plaintiff
Swaney’s arrest. The woman told police that Plaintiff Swaney raped her shortly before she
32 , 576 F.3d 551, 558-59 (6th Cir. 2009).
33 , 666 F. App’x 441, 443 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting ., 305
F.3d 520, 527 (6th Cir. 2002)).
34 , 556 F.3d 484, 496 (6th Cir. 2009).
35 , 12 F.4th 617, 620 (6th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted).
reported the assault.36 She identified Plaintiff Swaney by name and said they had known
each other for years.37
Police observed injuries on the victim’s face, neck, and thighs, and observed that
she had a raspy voice and difficulty swallowing.38 Police also observed that the victim’s
clothes were covered in mud.39 At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff Swaney’s shoes were
covered in mud.40
Before Plaintiff Swaney’s arrest, police dispatch told police officers Plaintiff
Swaney’s name, driver’s license number, and outfit description based on the alleged
victim’s statement.41 Police arrested Plaintiff Swaney in the area near where the victim
reported that the rape occurred.42
Plaintiff Swaney’s arrest was constitutional because the victim’s report gave police
probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Swaney.
Searching Plaintiff Swaney for weapons during his arrest was also constitutional.
Police may search a suspect’s person when placing the suspect under arrest.43
Requiring Plaintiff Swaney to remove his clothing to change into a jail uniform was
also constitutional. The Supreme Court has held that pretrial strip searches of jail detainees
do not violate the Fourth Amendment because “correctional officials must be permitted to
devise reasonable search policies to detect and deter the possession of contraband in their
36 Doc. 26-1 (Police Report) at 2.
37 at 2, 4-5.
38 at 4-5.
39 at 1.
40 at 3.
41 at 2-3.
42 at 3.
43 , 499 F.3d 596, 604 (6th Cir. 2007).
facilities.”44
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ summary
judgment motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2022
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
44 , 566 U.S. 318, 328 (2012).