Hoepf v. Sanchez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ANTHONY M. HOEPF, ) Case No. 1:22-cv-153

)

Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese

)

v. ) Magistrate Judge

) William H. Baughman, Jr.

CITY OF AMHERST, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Anthony M. Hoepf filed this action against the City of Amherst,

Judge Thomas A. Januzzi, Amherst Police Officer Sanders Sanchez, and Amherst

Police Officer Zemanek. (ECF No. 1.) Although not listed in the caption of the

complaint, it appears that Plaintiff identifies Prosecutor John Wheeler as a party

within the body of the complaint. Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and false arrest/false imprisonment. He seeks unspecified monetary

damages and an order against the City of Amherst “to protect against the illegal

removal, destruction, mutilation or transfer of, or other damage to or disposition of”

police body camera videos or police cruiser videos. (Id., PageID #5.) Plaintiff also

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court GRANTS

that application.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint concerns circumstances surrounding his arrest and

detention in February 2019. Plaintiff states in his complaint that Officer Sanchez

pulled him over while he was leaving McDonald’s, placed him in handcuffs, and

conducted an illegal search of his vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly told

Officer Sanchez that he did not possess any weapons or drugs and he did not consent

to the search of his vehicle. Plaintiff claims that, after Officer Nemanek arrived with

a statement from McDonald’s, Plaintiff was placed under arrest, the officers

conducted “an unreasonable search [and] false arrest,” and his vehicle was illegally

impounded. (ECF No. 1, PageID #2–3.) It appears that Plaintiff was charged on

February 6, 2019 in Oberlin Municipal Court, Case No. 19CRB00055, with disturbing

the peace and disorderly conduct. Following a bench trial, Plaintiff was found not

guilty of the charges.1

Further, Plaintiff alleges that, during his criminal case proceedings, he filed a

motion for appointment of counsel, which Judge Januzzi denied. Plaintiff states that

Prosecutor Wheeler, among other prosecutors, attempted to obtain a guilty plea from

Plaintiff during pretrial proceedings. (Id., PageID #3–4.)

Plaintiff alleges that the police officers’ conduct constituted an unreasonable,

warrantless search of his person and his vehicle and an arrest without probable cause

in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Also, he alleges that his intentional and unlawful

detention without legal justification constituted “false arrest/false imprisonment.”

(Id., PageID #4–5.)

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the public dockets, opinions, and

proceedings issued by other courts. Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d

736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980) (citation omitted).

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,

365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court,

however, is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)

if it fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted or if it lacks an arguable basis

in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898

F.2d 1196, 1198 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th

Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly

baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

A cause of action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when it

lacks “plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564

(2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief

above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint

are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required to include detailed

factual allegations but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-Defendant-

unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers

legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

meet this pleading standard. Id.

In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561

(6th Cir.1998).

ANALYSIS

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Januzzi and

Prosecutor Wheeler, and his Section 1983 claims against the City of Amherst must

be dismissed under Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

I. Judge Januzzi

Judicial officers generally are absolutely immune from civil suits for money

damages. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991); Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111,

1115 (6th Cir. 1997). They are accorded this broad protection to ensure that the

independent and impartial exercise of their judgment in a case is not impaired by the

exposure to damages by dissatisfied litigants. Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1115. For this

reason, absolute immunity is overcome only where (1) the conduct alleged is

performed at a time when the defendant is not acting as a judge; or (2) the conduct

alleged, although judicial in nature, is taken in complete absence of all subject matter

jurisdiction of the court over which the jduge presides. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11–12;

Barnes, 105 F.3d at 1116. A judge will be not deprived of immunity even if the action

at issue was performed in error, done maliciously, or exceeded his authority. Stump

v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).

Here, Plaintiff appears to object to decisions that Judge Januzzi made in

connection with the criminal proceedings against him, such as the decision to deny

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. Decisions concerning pending motions,

evidence, and indictments are all actions typically performed by judges in criminal

matters. Plaintiff has not established that Judge Januzzi acted clearly outside of the

subject matter jurisdiction of the court over which the judge presides. Therefore,

Judge Januzzi enjoys absolute immunity from damages in this action.

II. Prosecutor Wheeler

Plaintiff does not list Prosecutor Wheeler as a defendant in the caption of the

complaint. Rather, he lists the prosecutor’s name in the “Parties” section of the

complaint and states that the prosecutor “represents the City of Amherst.” (ECF

No. 1, ¶ 4, PageID #1.) To the extent Plaintiff has attempted to include Prosecutor

Wheeler as a defendant in this action, he fails. Prosecutors also have absolute

immunity from liability under Section 1983 for their conduct in “‘initiating a

prosecution and in presenting the State’s case.’” Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486

(1991) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)). So long as the

prosecutor was engaged in prosecutorial functions, he is absolutely immune

regardless of whether he undertook actions maliciously, in bad faith, or with an

improper motive. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427 & n.27, 431 & n.34 (prosecutor immune

after knowingly presenting perjured testimony and suppressing exculpatory evidence

at trial); Joseph v. Patterson, 795 F.2d 549, 555 (6th Cir. 1986) (prosecutor immune

after “knowingly obtaining issuance of criminal complaints and arrest warrants . . .

based on false, coerced statements”); Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1139 (6th

Cir. 1989) (prosecutor immune for deciding to investigate and conspiring to present

false charges to the grand jury, allegedly to satisfy a campaign promise to be tough

on child abuse). Prosecutorial functions include participation in probable cause

hearings, grand jury hearings, pretrial proceedings, witness preparation, and trials.

Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir. 2010).

Here, it appears that Plaintiff claims that Prosecutor Wheeler, who is one of

three assistant prosecutors with whom he had contact during his numerous pretrial

hearings, “attempted to get [Plaintiff] to plead guilty and accept a fine” in his criminal

case. (ECF No. 1, PageID #4.) Participation in plea negotiations and pretrial

hearings is a typical prosecutorial function for which prosecutors are immune.

Moreover, even if Prosecutor Wheeler acted in bad faith in attempting to negotiate a

guilty plea, he has absolute immunity against Plaintiff’s claims. Imbler, 424 U.S. at

427 & n.27, 431 & n.34; Joseph, 795 F.2d at 555; Grant, 870 F.2d at 1139.

III. City of Amherst

It is a basic pleading requirement that a plaintiff attribute specific factual

allegations to particular defendants. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that to state

a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of

the claim). And the Court is not required to conjure unpleaded facts or construct

claims against defendants on behalf of a pro se plaintiff. See Bassett v. National

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th Cir. 2008).

Where, as here, the City of Amherst is named as a defendant without

allegations of discernible specific conduct relating to Plaintiff’s purported claim, the

complaint is subject to dismissal even under the liberal construction afforded to pro

se complaints. Merely listing names in the caption of the complaint and alleging

constitutional violations in the body of the complaint is not enough to sustain recovery

under § 1983. Gilmore v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 92 F. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir.

2004).

To the extent Plaintiff alleges the City of Amherst is liable for the alleged

misconduct of Officers Sanchez and Zemanek, Plaintiff’s claim fails. There is no

respondeat superior liability for violations of constitutional rights under Section

1983, and Plaintiff has not alleged facts in his complaint sufficient to demonstrate

that an official policy or custom of the City of Amherst caused a violation of his

constitutional rights. See Moniz v. Hines, 92 F. App’x 208, 211 (6th Cir. 2004)

(dismissing complaint against a local government for failing to allege that a

constitutional violation occurred pursuant to a municipal custom, usage, or official

policy). Plaintiff’s conclusory statement in the “Parties” section of the complaint that

the actions of Prosecutor Wheeler and Officers Sanchez and Zemanek “were the direct

and proximate result of the failure of the City of Amherst to properly train” its

employees is insufficient. That allegations fails to provide even minimal factual

support that might establish liability. The pleading standard of Rule 8 does not

require much, but it requires more than mere labels and conclusory assertions.

Therefore, the complaint fails to allege a plausible constitutional violation

against the City of Amherst.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court

dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Januzzi and Prosecutor Wheeler, as well

as his Section 1983 claims against the City of Amherst. Further, the Court certifies,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be

taken in good faith. This case shall proceed solely on Plaintiffs constitutional claims

against Officers Sanchez and Zemanek and his State-law claims of false arrest/false

imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2022

J.Philip Calabrese

United States District Judge

Northern District of Ohio