The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN ARTUSO, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-01798
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
) Jonathan D. Greenberg
WILLIAM FELT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises out of the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff John Artuso for
allegedly raping a woman after he conducted a housing code inspection of her son’s
apartment. A jury acquitted him on all charges. Plaintiff then brought suit under
federal and State law against the Ashtabula County prosecutor and the detectives
responsible for the rape investigation. Plaintiff dismissed the prosecutor. (ECF
No. 35.) Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims against them. (ECF
No. 81.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment on Claims One and Two. Further, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining State law claims and
DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the record establishes the
following undisputed facts, which the Court construes in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, as it must in the current procedural posture.
A. Background
Plaintiff John Artuso served as the Housing Code Inspector for the City of
Ashtabula from 2013 to 2018. (ECF No. 72, PageID #731–32.) Also, he served as an
unpaid auxiliary police officer for the City from 2011 to 2018. (Id., PageID #718.)
The investigation and prosecution underlying Plaintiff’s claims began in
December 2017. At that time, the Ashtabula Police Department was investigating
the alleged theft of money and property from an abandoned building scheduled for
demolition. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1123.) Mr. Artuso had access to and from time to
time entered the building in his role as housing inspector, and police suspected he
was involved in the theft. (ECF No. 72, PageID #692; ECF No. 77, PageID #1537.)
On December 16, 2017, a local newspaper, the Star Beacon, published a story
concerning the investigation. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1123; ECF No. 77,
PageID #1513.)
B. The Alleged Incident at the Bunker Hill Apartment Complex
After seeing the Star Beacon report, Judy Smith approached the Ashtabula
County Sheriff’s Office. She reported that Mr. Artuso raped her after he inspected
her son’s apartment. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1131.) The Sheriff’s Office referred
Smith to Special Agent Melissa Fortunato of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
who was working with Ashtabula police to investigate Mr. Artuso for the alleged
theft. (Id., PageID #1205.) Fortunato conducted a short interview with Smith, then
contacted Detective William Felt with the City of Ashtabula Police Department about
Smith’s allegation. (Id., PageID #1143 & #1205.) On December 19, 2017, Fortunato
and Detective Felt interviewed Smith and spoke with her and her husband for over
two hours. (ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.) Both during Smith’s initial conversation
with Fortunato and again in the interview on December 19, she reported that the
following events occurred.
Mr. Artuso inspected the apartment of Travis Smith, the son of Judy Smith, in
the Bunker Hill Apartment complex. (Id.) Judy Smith attended the inspection in her
son’s stead because he had to work. (Id.; ECF No. 74, PageID #1205.) Julia Sutch,
the manager of the apartment complex, and Smith’s niece Jennifer Hubbard also
attended the inspection. (ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.) Some testimony suggests
that Smith’s sister was also present, but the summary of Fortunato and Detective
Felt’s interviews with Smith do not mention her sister. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1144
& #1205; ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.)
After Mr. Artuso finished the inspection, Smith left the apartment and went
into town. (Id.; ECF No. 74, PageID #1205.) There, she ran into Mr. Artuso again.
(Id.; ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.) He asked her to return to her son’s apartment to
address some additional issues because Sutch was disputing a point in the inspection.
(ECF No. 74, PageID #1205 & #1145–46; ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.) Smith agreed
to do so. (Id.)
Smith and Mr. Artuso returned to the apartment complex in separate vehicles.
(Id.) She unlocked her son’s apartment and entered the unit, with Mr. Artuso
following behind her. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1206; ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.)
Once they were inside the unit, Mr. Artuso shut the door behind them. (Id.) Then,
according to Smith, Mr. Artuso grabbed her and implied that if she cooperated, he
would make sure her son’s apartment passed inspection. (Id.) Then, Mr. Artuso
maneuvered Smith to the floor and began to rape her. (Id.) Smith stated she kneed
Mr. Artuso, at which point he stopped assaulting her and told her, “don’t even bother”
reporting the rape because he had friends in the police department and nobody would
believe her. (ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1996.) Mr. Artuso exited the apartment through
a rear sliding glass door, which was held shut with a baseball bat. (Id.)
Initially, Ms. Smith could not recall the exact date of the alleged rape, only
that it occurred on the day Mr. Artuso inspected her son’s apartment. (ECF No. 74,
PageID #1205.) During Smith’s first conversation with Fortunato, she reported that
the incident occurred in August 2017. (Id.) Then she stated during the December 19
interview with Fortunato and Detective Felt that it occurred in November 2017. (Id.,
PageID #1134–36.) After reviewing information in her cell phone, Smith determined
the alleged rape occurred on September 15, 2017. (Id., PageID #1134; ECF No. 79-1,
PageID #2038.) Detective Felt testified that he found Smith’s report believable, but
he understood that the date discrepancy might cast some doubt on her credibility.
(ECF No. 74, PageID #1132.)
C. The Investigation
Shortly after interviewing Smith, Ashtabula police initiated an investigation.
(ECF No. 79-1, PageID #1196–2002.) They filed the investigation under the same
incident report number as the alleged theft. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1129.) Detectives
did not interview Mr. Artuso or visit the scene of the alleged crime in December 2017.
(ECF No. 74, PageID #1137 & #1188–89.) However, the police report indicates that
investigators interviewed several witnesses in December 2017. (ECF No. 79-1,
PageID #1996–2002.)
C.1. Interviews
Detective Felt interviewed Hubbard (Smith’s niece) the same day he
interviewed Smith, and Hubbard confirmed that she was present at the inspection of
Travis Smith’s apartment and that she—Hubbard—was in a sexual relationship with
Mr. Artuso. (Id., PageID #1997.) Michael Franklin, the City Solicitor, directed
Detective Felt to interview the manager of the apartment complex (Julia Sutch) and
Smith’s son. (Id.) Sutch confirmed that Mr. Artuso inspected Travis Smith’s unit on
September 15, 2017, and that she, Smith, and Hubbard were present. (Id.) The police
report does not reflect whether Detective Felt spoke to Travis Smith. (ECF No. 79-1,
PageID #1996–2048.) Detective Felt testified before the grand jury that he did speak
with Travis Smith. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1452.) Plaintiff’s expert witness report
reviews a recording of Detective Felt interviewing Travis Smith dated December 20,
2017. (ECF No. 78, PageID #1818–20.)
C.2. Records
Detectives obtained records of Mr. Artuso’s activities on the day of the alleged
rape. Detective Felt testified that Detective Michael Palinkas drafted the subpoena
for Mr. Artuso’s personal cell phone records. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1128.) Detective
Doug Hollis retrieved Mr. Artuso’s work records from the City. (ECF No. 79-1,
PageID #2037.) Detectives had these records in December 2017. (Id.; ECF No. 74,
PageID #1139–40.)
C.3. Mr. Artuso’s Activities
Mr. Artuso’s work records reflect that he performed twenty-four inspections at
seven different locations on September 15, 2017, including several at the Bunker Hill
Apartment Complex. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1233.) Detective Felt testified that,
based on his investigation, Mr. Artuso could not have completed those inspections
before 11:45 a.m. (Id., PageID #1144–45.) Mr. Artuso’s personal cell phone records
reflect that he also participated in five phone calls between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.
on September 15, 2017: one at 11:02 a.m. that lasted five minutes; one at 11:38 a.m.
that lasted two minutes; and one at 11:50 a.m. that lasted a minute; one at 11:51 a.m.
that lasted one minute; and one at 11:56 a.m. that lasted four minutes. (Id.,
PageID #1147 & #1208.) Detective Felt understood that Mr. Artuso’s inspection of
Travis Smith’s apartment began at approximately 10:40 a.m. and lasted 20 minutes.
(ECF No. 74, PageID #1143.) Mr. Artuso received another call at 12:06 p.m. that
lasted one minute. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1208.) Mr. Artuso testified that the call
concerned some illegal dumping in town and that he went to meet a colleague to
address the issue. (ECF No. 72, PageID #760.) In short, these documented activities
leave little room, but not no room, for Mr. Artuso to have committed the rape as
ultimately charged.
C.4. Analysis of Records
Investigators obtained these records but did not analyze them to create a
timeline of Plaintiff’s activities or whereabouts on September 15, 2017. (ECF No. 74,
PageID #1142; ECF No. 73, PageID #955.) They had the ability to do so. (ECF No. 73,
PageID # 952–53.) Detective Felt testified that Ashtabula detectives typically
analyzed available evidence, other than physical evidence that would be submitted to
the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation, before presenting a matter to the
prosecutor. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1126.)
Detective Cellitti was a lieutenant at the Ashtabula detective bureau, and at
the relevant times was Detective Felt’s superior. (ECF No. 73, PageID #895.) One of
Lt. Cellitti’s duties was to ensure that the detectives were doing their jobs, and both
he and Police Chief Robert Stell testified that they would expect detectives to analyze
the evidence in their possession, such as phone records. (Id., PageID #896; ECF
No. 85, Page ID #2212.)
D. Further Investigation
In September 2018, the detectives conducted a follow-up investigation with
Sutch concerning the scene of the alleged rape based on information received from
the office of the Ashtabula County prosecutor, who at the time was Nicholas Iarocci.
(ECF No. 79-1, PageID #2006.) Specifically, Detective Palinkas investigated whether
the sliding glass door through which Mr. Artuso allegedly exited the apartment was
operable. (Id.) Detective Palinkas visited Sutch on September 6, 2018. (Id.) Sutch
reported that she told Mr. Artuso and his attorney that the sliding door had been
inoperable for several years. (Id., PageID #2007.) Defendant Palinkas attempted to
open the door and found it opened with “some force.” (Id., PageID #2009.) Detectives
did not undertake these investigative steps in December 2017 before Detective Felt
submitted the investigation to the prosecutor’s office. (ECF No. 74,
PageID #1136–37.)
E. The Search and the Prosecution of Mr. Artuso
On December 13, 2017, approximately a week before Smith came forward with
her allegations against Mr. Artuso, Detective Felt executed an affidavit to support a
search warrant of Plaintiff’s home in connection with the theft investigation. (ECF
No. 74, PageID #1162.) Mr. Artuso claims that Detective Felt falsified this affidavit
because he mentioned Mr. Artuso’s “proven criminal activity” when he did not have
a basis for this statement. (Id., PageID #1166; ECF No. 89, PageID #2287.) During
the search of Mr. Artuso’s home, investigators recovered evidence they believed
linked him to the alleged theft. (Id., PageID #1168.) Plaintiff does not point to any
evidence in the record suggesting that the Ashtabula County prosecutor used the
fruits of this search warrant to prosecute Mr. Artuso for rape.
Detective Felt submitted his investigation file to the prosecutor’s office to make
a probable cause determination regarding the rape allegation. (ECF No. 74,
PageID #1178–79.) However, it is unclear whether he transferred Mr. Artuso’s work
and cell phone records along with the rest of investigation file. Neither the police
department nor the prosecutor’s office documented all the contents of the file
Detective Felt sent. (Id.) At the time, under their standard practices, neither the
department nor the prosecutor’s office itemized in detail the evidence conveyed to the
prosecutor’s office. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1318–19; ECF No. 85, PageID #2213.)
Plaintiff claims that detectives intentionally altered the file to withhold the work and
phone records from the prosecutor’s office. (ECF No. 89, PageID #2287.)
Iarocci does not recall seeing Mr. Artuso’s work and personal cell phone records
before convening the grand jury. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1373.) He testified that, if
the police had Mr. Artuso’s work and personal cell phone records, he would have
expected that information to be conveyed to his office and presented to the grand jury
and that he would have presented the records if he had them. (Id., PageID #1372 &
1381.) In January 2018, Iarocci presented the case to the grand jury, which indicted
Mr. Artuso on three counts: (1) rape; (2) kidnapping; and (3) sexual battery. (Id.,
PageID #1330 & #1416–17.) During Detective Felt’s grand jury testimony, Iarocci
asked him whether the police had any documentation from Mr. Artuso. (ECF No. 76,
PageID #1452.) Detective Felt testified that Mr. Artuso did not produce any
documents. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Detective Felt lied in response to questions from
Iarocci during his testimony before the grand jury. (Id., PageID #1324–27.) Also,
Smith testified before the grand jury. (Id., PageID #1458–76.)
Although Iarocci did not see Plaintiff’s work and phone records before
convening the grand jury, he saw them after the grand jury indicted Mr. Artuso.
(ECF No. 76, PageID #1376.) Iarocci testified that he continued to believe he could
obtain a conviction in the rape case after he received the records, which is why he
took the case to trial. (Id., PageID #1380.) He believed there was a window of time
during which the alleged rape could have occurred. (Id., PageID #1384.)
On February 1, 2018, Mr. Artuso was arrested for the rape and tried in
September 2018. (ECF No. 72, PageID #749 &780–81; ECF No. 76,
PageID #1331–32.) Mr. Artuso’s cell phone and work records were admitted into
evidence at trial. (ECF No. 72, PageID #758–59.) A jury acquitted Mr. Artuso on all
charges. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1332–33.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Based on these events, Plaintiff sued Detectives Felt, Hollis, Palinkas, and
Cellitti for: (1) malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) failure to intervene
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) malicious prosecution under State law; (4) intentional
and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress under State law; and (5) willful,
wanton, and reckless conduct under State law. (ECF No. 27, PageID #209–12.) Also,
he sued former prosecutor Iarocci, asserting the same claims (ECF No. 1), but on
February 4, 2020, shortly after Iarocci won a seat on the Conneaut Municipal Court,
Plaintiff dismissed him as a Defendant. (ECF No. 35.) The remaining Defendants
moved for summary judgment on all claims. (ECF No. 81.)
Defendants’ motion and Plaintiff’s response both address a claim under Monell
v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), against the City of Ashtabula.
(ECF No. 81-1, PageID #2068–69; ECF No. 89, PageID #2300–01.) Plaintiff sued
Defendants in their official capacities as detectives for the City of Ashtabula Police
Department, and “official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of
pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Monell, 436 U.S.
at 690 n. 55. However, Plaintiff did not specifically plead a Monell claim in any count.
And a municipality cannot be held liable for a constitutional violation on a respondeat
superior theory—“in other words, solely because it employs a tortfeasor.” Wright v.
City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852, 879 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691)
(internal citations omitted.) Nevertheless, the Court will address the parties’
arguments on the assumption that Plaintiff has sufficiently placed a Monell claim at
issue.
ANALYSIS
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is
appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Kirilenko-Ison v. Board of Educ. of Danville
Indep. Schs., 974 F.3d 652, 660 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden
of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to an essential
element of the claim or defense at issue. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472,
1479–80 & n.12 (6th Cir. 1989); Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 584 F. Supp. 2d 974,
988 (N.D. Ohio 2008). After discovery, summary judgment is appropriate if the
non-moving party fails to establish “an element essential to that party’s case and
upon which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Tokmenko v.
MetroHealth Sys., 488 F. Supp. 3d 571, 576 (N.D. Ohio 2020) (citing Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
To determine whether a genuine dispute about material facts exists, it is not
the Court’s duty to search the record; instead, the parties must bring those facts to
the Court’s attention. See Betkerur v. Aultman Hosp. Ass’n, 78 F.3d 1079, 1087 (6th
Cir. 1996). “The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing
the court of the basis for its motion” and identifying the portions of the record “which
it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Tokmenko,
488 F. Supp. 3d at 576 (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322). Then, the nonmoving
party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)). “When the
moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus., 475 U.S. at 586.
On summary judgment, the central inquiry “determin[es] whether there is the
need for a trial—whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that
properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be
resolved in favor of either party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. Generally, a district
court “will not consider non-material facts, nor will it weigh material evidence to
determine the truth of the matter.” Kermavner v. Wyla, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 325,
329 (N.D. Ohio 2017) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249). A district court only
examines “disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
If a genuine dispute exists, meaning “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” summary judgment is not
appropriate. Tokmenko, 488 F. Supp. 3d at 576 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250).
However, if “the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative,”
summary judgment for the movant is proper. Id. The “mere existence of some alleged
factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48).
I. Motions to Strike
Before reaching the substantive arguments raised in Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, the Court addresses the parties’ motions to strike evidence.
“Generally, a district court should dispose of motions that affect the record on
summary judgment before ruling on the parties’ summary judgment motions.”
Brainard v. American Skandia Life Assur. Corp., 432 F.3d 655, 667 (6th Cir. 2005)
Defendants move to strike the grand jury transcript and portions of Plaintiff’s expert
testimony. (ECF No. 93; ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff moves to strike the transcript of day
two of his criminal trial for rape. (ECF No. 91.)
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that a motion to strike applies only to
pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). It is not a proper vehicle for attacking exhibits
filed in support of, or in opposition to, motions for summary judgment. Goodwin v.
American Marine Express, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01014, 2021 WL 848948, at *8 (N.D.
Ohio Mar. 5, 2021); see also Andrews v. Lecats Ventriloscope LLC, No. 5:19-CV-01792,
2022 WL 704578, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2022). Instead, in this procedural posture,
motions to strike should be construed as objections under Rule 56(c)(2). Andrews,
2022 WL 704578, at *3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) advisory committee’s note to
2010 amendment. Rule 56(c)(2) governs objections to the admissibility of evidence
offered to support a factual assertion in a motion for summary judgment. Under this
Rule, “[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot
be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Accordingly, the Court
construes the parties’ motions to strike as objections under Rule 56(c)(2).
Under Rule 56(c)(2), the Court will disregard any inadmissible portions of the
evidence at issue. In evaluating an objection under Rule 56(c)(2), the Court “should
disregard [inadmissible evidence] rather than striking it from the record.”
Stephenson v. Family Sols. of Ohio, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-2017, 2021 WL 795551, *5 (N.D.
Ohio Mar. 3, 2021) (cleaned up). “It is well settled that only admissible evidence may
be considered by the trial court ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Wiley v.
United States, 20 F.3d 222, 226 (6th Cir. 1994) (cleaned up).
I.A. Grand Jury Transcript
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s citation of the grand jury transcript to oppose
their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants argue that the Court
should not consider Detective Felt’s testimony before the grand jury because he enjoys
immunity from suit for that testimony, rendering it inadmissible as irrelevant. (Id.,
PageID #2560–61.) Plaintiff opposes, arguing the testimony is “relevant to
Defendants’ conduct outside the grand jury proceedings,” Defendants are not immune
from suit in their official capacities for grand jury testimony, and the testimony is
admissible as impeachment evidence. (ECF No. 97, PageID #2783.) Under Rule 402,
“irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. Defendants are correct
that Detective Felt enjoys absolute immunity for his testimony before the grand jury,
even if that testimony included false statements. Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356,
367–70 (2012).
At this stage of the proceedings, however, the Court overrules this objection.
As Plaintiff argues, while Detective Felt enjoys absolute immunity for his grand jury
testimony, it could be relevant to prove other facts or for impeachment purposes.
(ECF No. 97.) The standard for relevance is broad and simply means that a fact has
consequence to determining the action or has any tendency to make a fact more or
less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further, the grand jury testimony does not alter
the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For these
reasons, the Court overrules Defendants’ objection.
I.B. Criminal Trial Transcript
Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ citation to day two of the trial transcript from
Mr. Artuso’s prosecution on the ground it was submitted for the first time in reply.
(ECF No. 91.) Defendants filed notice that they would submit the transcript on June
3, 2021 (ECF No. 90), after Defendants filed their opposition brief (ECF No. 89).
Plaintiff argues use of the transcript after he opposed the summary judgment motion
deprives him of his right to notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to
Defendants’ arguments. (ECF No. 91, PageID #2534.) Defendants respond that they
do not cite the trial transcript in support of a new argument, but to address Plaintiff’s
argument that no evidence corroborated Smith’s allegation, which he raised in his
response brief. (ECF No. 95, PageID #1775.) Further, they argue that, where a reply
is the moving party’s earliest opportunity to address new arguments that a non-
movant raises in opposition, the moving party may present new evidence on reply.
(Id., PageID #2776.)
“[F]or all practical purposes,” an issue raised in reply is “the same as if it had
not been raised at all as a basis for summary judgment.” McGruder v. Metropolitan
Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., No. 3:17-cv-1547, 2020 WL 4586171, at *3 (M.D.
Tenn. Aug. 10, 2020). While “a district court nonetheless has the discretion to
consider an issue raised in a reply brief, or new evidence submitted with a reply, it
must give the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to respond to the new
argument or evidence. Failure to do so is an abuse of discretion.” Id. at *2 (citing
Seay v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454, 481 (6th Cir. 2003)).
However, the Court may consider additional evidence submitted with a reply
brief where the moving party seeks to “address new arguments presented in a
plaintiff’s response.” Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, 536 F. App’x 577, 579 (6th Cir.
2013). Defendants maintain that this exception applies because Plaintiff argued in
opposition that Defendants continued to receive exonerating evidence—specifically
the operability of the sliding glass door—that they ignored. (ECF No. 89, PageID
#2288.) Contrary to Defendants’ argument, Plaintiff has identified this as an issue
in the litigation since he filed his complaint. (ECF No. 27, PageID #207.)
Although Plaintiff can hardly claim surprise by the transcript of a trial in
which he was the defendant, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objection and will not
consider the trial transcript in ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Further, the Court notes that it can rule on Defendants’ motion without reference to
the transcript. Defendants use the trial transcript to support a single fact in their
reply—that Travis Smith testified at trial that he used the sliding door often to exit
his apartment and secured it with a baseball bat. (ECF No. 92-1, PageID #2543.)
I.C. Plaintiff’s Expert Witness Testimony
Defendants argue that the Court should not consider portions of the expert
report and deposition testimony of Joseph Matthews, Plaintiff’s expert witness (ECF
No. 78, PageID #1765), because he states legal conclusions and improperly makes
statements concerning Defendants’ state of mind (ECF No. 94, PageID #2563.)
I.C.1. Rule 702
Rule 702 “imposes a special obligation upon a trial judge to ‘ensure that any
and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable.’” Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). At bottom, this gatekeeping function ensures that expert
evidence rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. Daubert,
509 U.S. at 589, 597. Additionally, the Court must find that: (a) “the expert’s
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue”; (b) “the testimony is based
on sufficient facts or data”; (c) “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods”; and (d) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Court’s gatekeeping role applies to all
testimony based on technical or specialized knowledge, not just scientific evidence.
Kumho Tire Co., 526 U.S. at 147.
Matthews is a former investigator with over thirty years’ experience with the
City of Miami Beach police department and the television program America’s Most
Wanted. (ECF No. 78, PageID #1765.) Since his retirement from the Miami Beach
police department, Matthews has assisted police departments in investigating cold
cases, specifically homicides and sex crimes. (Id.) Based on the foundation in his
expert report, Matthews is qualified to serve as an expert concerning investigative
techniques. To prepare his expert report, Matthews reviewed the incident report and
investigative file, including narrative supplements; Defendants’ personnel files;
photos of the scene; witness interview recordings; Mr. Artuso’s phone and work
records; the grand jury transcript; the trial transcript; and a background report on
Smith. (Id., PageID #1843–44.) The Court concludes that Matthews’ expert
testimony is based on sufficient facts.
Finally, Matthews sets forth his findings and opinions on the various
Defendants, their activities, and the evidence in a thorough 78-page report, plus
exhibits and appendices. (Id., PageID #1765–1842.) In that report, he evaluates each
part of the record and identifies ways in which Defendants’ actions fell below
standard investigative practices, in his opinion. (Id.) Therefore, the Court
determines, and Defendants do not dispute, that Matthews reliably applied reliable
principles and methods to prepare his report.
I.C.2. Rule 704
Defendants object to certain statements in Matthews’ testimony where he uses
language that speaks to a state of mind or specific legal standards. For example, in
his report he states that Defendants’ “failures exhibited reckless and willful
misconduct and was not objectively reasonable.” (Id., PageID #1768.) Also, he states
that Defendants “acted with malicious intentions and in bad faith by ignoring the
rule of law.” (Id., PageID #1769.) As an initial matter, Defendants cite several
criminal cases in support of their motion to strike that are not applicable here. (ECF
No. 94, PageID #2566; ECF No. 100, PageID #2804–05 (citing United States v.
Scheffey, 57 F.3d 1419, 1425 (6th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Mazumder, 800 F.
App’x 392, 395 (6th Cir. 2020)).) Expert testimony in criminal cases is subject to the
additional requirements of Rule 704(b).
Under Rule 704(a), an expert’s opinion in a civil case can “embrace[] an
ultimate issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 704(a). However, expert testimony that “would merely
tell the jury what result to reach” is not helpful to the trier of fact and is objectionable
under Rule 702 and Rule 403. Fed. R. Evid. 704 advisory committee note to 1972
amendment. Plaintiff argues that Matthews uses the terms “reckless” and “willful”
to describe Defendants’ behavior, not as legal terms of art. (ECF No. 98, PageID
#2791.) However, Matthews could describe Defendants’ acts without these legal
terms, which are elements of several of Plaintiff’s claims. For example, he described
the overall investigation as “shoddy, incomplete, biased, and reprehensible.” (Id.,
PageID #1769.) And he describes Detective Felt’s failure to conduct a “proper”
investigation as “inexcusable” given Detective Felt’s experience and training. (Id.,
PageID #1771.)
Matthews’ testimony concerning Defendants’ various investigatory failures,
including strong negative descriptions of those failures, are proper expert evidence.
But Defendants identify no fewer than fifteen places where he employs legal terms of
art in his analysis. (ECF No. 94, PageID #2567–68.) To be sure, expert testimony is
not inadmissible just because the expert uses legal standards or terms of art. See
Heflin v. Stewart Cnty., Tenn., 958 F.2d 709, 715 (6th Cir. 1992). In Heflin, an expert
testified that the defendants acted with “deliberate indifference” while giving his
expert opinion that if they had acted quicker, an inmate might have survived a suicide
attempt. The district court admitted the opinion, and defendants appealed. The
expert, who was a doctor, used the phrase in one sentence and did not “claim to be an
expert on the legal requirements for recovery from jail officials for dereliction of duty.”
Id. But Matthews gratuitously parrots and overuses the exact legal standards at
issue in this case. To the extent Defendants object to the portions of Matthews’
opinions and testimony that impermissibly urge the finder of fact to determine that
any of Defendants’ actions were wanton, willful, or reckless, the Court sustains the
objection. As the Court discussed below, however, much of Matthews’ testimony is
immaterial to the Court’s ruling on this motion.
Finally, Defendants move to strike the portions of Matthews’ testimony that
examined Detective Felt’s grand jury testimony. (ECF No. 94, PageID #2563.) For
the reasons the Court overrules Defendants’ general objection to the grand jury
transcript, the Court overrules that objection with respect to Matthews’ testimony.
II. Federal Claims
As noted, Plaintiff brings three claims under federal law. The Court addresses
each in turn.
II.A. Malicious Prosecution Under Section 1983
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Mr. Artuso’s civil rights by falsely
prosecuting him for rape, kidnapping, and sexual battery. Defendants argue that the
presence of probable cause defeats Plaintiff’s claim.
To state a claim for malicious prosecution under the Constitution of the United
States, Plaintiff must prove: “(1) the defendant ‘made, influenced, or participated in
the decision to prosecute;’ (2) the government lacked probable cause; (3) the
proceeding caused the plaintiff to suffer a deprivation of liberty; and (4) the
prosecution ended in the plaintiff’s favor.” Lester v. Roberts, 986 F.3d 599, 606 (6th
Cir. 2021) (quoting Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308–09 (6th Cir. 2010)). The
fourth element does not require any affirmative indication of innocence—just that
there was no conviction. Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332, 1341 (2022). A
plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim cannot be based solely on a defendant’s grand
jury testimony. Rehberg, 566 U.S. at 375. The only element the parties briefed is
probable cause. (ECF No. 81-1, PageID #2059–64; ECF No. 89, PageID #2289–95.)
II.A.1. Probable Cause
Under federal law, Plaintiff must a establish a lack of probable cause for the
underlying criminal charge to succeed on a claim of malicious prosecution. Lester,
986 F.3d at 606. “Establishing the existence of probable cause will suggest that
prosecution would have occurred even without a retaliatory motive.” Hartman v.
Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 261 (2006); see also Trussell v. General Motors Corp., 53 Ohio
St. 3d 142, 559 N.E.2d 732 (1990), syllabus. Probable cause “requires only a
probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such
activity.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586 (2018) (citation omitted).
“[G]iven the reduced burdens imposed on the government at this pretrial stage . . .
cases will inevitably arise in which the government validly establishes the probable
cause necessary for a pretrial detention, but later falls short in proving guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Lester, 986 F.3d at 602 (citing Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S.
31, 36 (1979)).
A grand jury indictment “creates a presumption of probable cause.” Id. at 608
(citing King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 586 (6th Cir. 2017)). However, that
presumption is rebuttable where Plaintiff can demonstrate a genuine question of
material fact as to whether:
(1) a law enforcement officer, in the course of setting a prosecution in
motion, either knowingly or recklessly makes false statements or
falsifies or fabricates evidence; (2) the false statements and evidence,
together with any concomitant misleading omissions, are material to the
ultimate prosecution of the plaintiff; and (3) the false statements,
evidence, and omissions do not consist solely of grand jury testimony or
preparation . . . .
King, 852 F.3d at 587–88.
The Sixth Circuit summarized this rule as meaning that the presumption is
rebuttable where the defendant fabricated evidence or knowingly or recklessly made
a materially false statement “outside the grand jury context.” Lester, 986 F.3d at 608.
Plaintiff misstates the rule of King, saying “liability may still be imposed [despite a
grand jury indictment] where . . . a defendant causes the initiation of a criminal
proceeding without first forming a belief that probable cause exists.” (ECF No. 89,
PageID #2294) (emphasis added). But King imposes no such affirmative obligation
on law enforcement before referring an investigative file to a prosecutor’s office.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s reliance on the deposition of Chief Stell (at his deposition in
2020) that there was no probable cause when Detective Felt sent the file to Iarocci is
of no consequence here. (ECF No. 89, PageID #2291, ECF No. 85, PageID #2225–26.)
What matters is whether Defendants knowingly or recklessly fabricated evidence or
made false statements. On this score, Plaintiff argues that there is at least a genuine
dispute of material fact, pointing to several events outside the grand jury context.
Plaintiff cites Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), to argue that investigators
who fail to establish probable cause before “seeking to initiate a criminal proceeding”
may still be civilly liable, even where a subsequent neutral decision-maker finds that
probable cause exists. (ECF No. 89, PageID #2289–90.) In Malley, however, law
enforcement submitted a complaint and affidavit for an arrest warrant to a judge.
Malley, 475 U.S. at 337–38. Further, there was no presumption of probable cause
because the grand jury declined to return an indictment. Id. at 338.
Also, Plaintiff cites an unpublished case, Smith v. Williams, 78 F. 3d 585 (6th
Cir. 1996) (table), for the same proposition. There, the court did not address the
presumption of probable cause, even though the Supreme Court held as early as 1932
that “an indictment, fair upon its face, by a properly constituted grand jury,
conclusively determines the existence of probable cause.” Ex parte United States, 287
U.S. 241, 250 (1932).
In this case, the grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable
cause. Therefore, the Court considers whether that presumption remains conclusive
based on the record.
II.A.2. Presumption
With respect to Defendants Hollis, Palinkas, and Cellitti, there is little
question that Plaintiff cannot overcome the presumption. Plaintiff points to no facts
to indicate that these Defendants engaged in the kind of conduct contemplated in
King. He claims that Detective Palinkas misled the prosecutor by reporting the
sliding glass door in Smith’s apartment opened with “some force.” (ECF No. 89,
PageID #2288; ECF No. 79-1, PageID #2009.) Even construed in Plaintiff’s favor,
that fact alone does not undermine the presumption of probable cause attending the
grand jury’s indictment. Also, Plaintiff focuses on Cellitti’s and Hollis’s alleged
supervisory liability, which the Court will address below in evaluating Plaintiff’s
failure to intervene claim. (ECF No. 89, PageID #2295 & #2297–99.) Therefore, the
Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s
malicious prosecution claims against Defendants Hollis, Palinkas, and Cellitti.
Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against Detective Felt presents a closer
call. Therefore, the Court will analyze whether there is a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the presumption of probable cause is rebuttable in this case based
on Detective Felt’s actions.
II.A.2.i. Setting a Prosecution in Motion
In King, the Sixth Circuit supported its exception to the general rule that an
indictment establishes probable cause by explaining that law enforcement officers
who “set[] a prosecution in motion” are analogous to “complaining witnesses” at
common law, as the Supreme Court contemplated in Rehberg. King, 852 F.3d at 587.
At common law, complaining witnesses did not enjoy absolute immunity for their
testimony. Rehberg, 566 U.S. at 370–73. Generally, a law enforcement officer who
testifies before a grand jury is not performing the function of a complaining witness.
Id. at 367–68. And even “a detective or case agent who has performed or supervised
most of the investigative work . . . and may very much want the grand jury to return
an indictment . . . does not make the decision to press criminal charges.” Id. at 371.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants initiated criminal charges against him. (ECF
No. 27, PageID #206.) The record establishes that Detective Felt led the rape
investigation, sent the investigative file to the prosecutor’s office, and testified before
the grand jury. Indeed, Detective Felt testified that he sent the investigation file to
the prosecutor’s office “to make a probable cause determination.” (ECF No. 74,
PageID #1178–79.) However, he did not apply for an arrest warrant or “make the
critical decision to initiate a prosecution,” id., the prosecutor did.
Under this framework, Detective Felt is arguably not the “complaining
witness.” However, the parties dispute Detective Felt’s role in the prosecution after
the grand jury indictment. Plaintiff argues that Defendants continued to insist the
prosecutor move forward with the prosecution and that he relied on their
representations that probable cause existed, (ECF No. 89, PageID #2288), but
Iarocci’s testimony refutes that position. He testified that he and the chief assistant
prosecutor both found Smith’s testimony compelling enough that they believed
Mr. Artuso could be convicted at trial. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1382–83.) Therefore,
the Court will examine the other elements of the King exception assuming there is at
least a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Detective Felt “set in motion”
Mr. Artuso’s prosecution for rape.
II.A.2.ii. Grand Jury Testimony
Without question, several of the facts Mr. Artuso points to in support of his
malicious prosecution claim cannot be considered grand jury testimony or even
preparation for that testimony. However, Plaintiff argues that Detective Felt “offered
false testimony before the grand jury,” citing the entirety of his testimony. (ECF
No. 89, PageID #2287.) Detective Felt enjoys absolute immunity for his grand jury
testimony. Rehberg, 566 U.S. at 369.
During the grand jury proceeding, Iarocci asked Detective Felt, “What about
from Mr. Artuso?” (ECF No. 76, PageID #1452.) Iarocci was asking whether
Mr. Artuso provided law enforcement with records corroborating that an inspection
took place on September 15, 2017. (Id.) Detective Felt replied that Mr. Artuso “did
not produce any documents.” (ECF No. 76, PageID #1452–53.) However, Defendants
were in possession of Mr. Artuso’s work records when Detective Felt testified before
the grand jury. (ECF No. 79-1, PageID #2037; ECF No. 74, PageID #1139–40.) As a
technical matter, Mr. Artuso himself did not produce those records. The City did. But
Detective Felt’s testimony left a false impression.
Also, Plaintiff submitted Matthews’ expert opinion that Detective Felt’s grand jury
testimony was false. (ECF No. 78, PageID #1827–37.) Matthews opined that
Detective Felt exaggerated what Smith reported during the interview on December
19, 2017 and falsely reported that Smith’s interview lasted over two hours because
Smith was at the Ashtabula police station for over two hours, but Detective Felt and
Fortunato were not actively interviewing her for two hours. (Id., PageID #1827–28.)
Comparing Detective Felt’s grand jury testimony (ECF No. 76, PageID #1440–57) to
Smith’s testimony (id., PageID #1457–76) and the investigation report (ECF No. 79-1,
PageID #1996–97), his testimony was not substantially dissimilar. But even if
Detective Felt’s grand jury testimony were demonstrably false, it could not serve as
the basis of a malicious prosecution claim under Rehberg.
Finally, Plaintiff argues in a footnote that Defendants are not entitled to
absolute immunity because they waived the defense. (ECF No. 89, PageID #2284 n.1;
Lester, 986 F.3d at 609 (citing Parnell v. City of Detroit, 786 F. App’x 43, 47 n.3 (6th
Cir. 2019)).) Unlike the Defendants in Parnell, 786 F. App’x at 47 n.3, Defendants
raised absolute immunity as a defense, even though Plaintiff’s complaint did not
include allegations regarding Detective Felt’s grand jury testimony. (ECF No. 27.)
Through discovery, it became clear that Plaintiff believed that Detective Felt’s grand
jury testimony was false, through the expert report of Mathews, among other things.
(ECF No. 78, PageID #1826–37.) On this record, the Court declines to find that
Detective Felt waived the defense where, as here, he presented it at the earliest
opportunity after receiving notice of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding its falsehood.
II.A.2.iii. False Statements or Fabricated Evidence
Under King, the grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable
cause that is only rebuttable where the defendants knowingly or recklessly made
“false statements” or “falsified or fabricated evidence.” King, 852 F.3d at 587–88.
The Court has already concluded that Detective Felt’s grand jury testimony, even if
false, is not enough to rebut the presumption because he enjoys immunity for that
testimony. That leaves Plaintiff’s argument that Detective Felt engaged in
misconduct outside the grand jury context. First, Plaintiff claims that Detective Felt
falsified an affidavit to support a search warrant of Mr. Artuso’s home. (ECF No. 89,
PageID #2287.) Second, Plaintiff points to Detective Felt’s investigation, namely that
he (1) failed to interview all witnesses and ask thorough follow-up questions; (2) failed
to gather and preserve evidence, including failing to visit the scene of the alleged rape
until September 2018; (3) failed to analyze evidence like Mr. Artuso’s phone and work
records. (ECF No. 89, PageID #2292.) Third, Plaintiff claims Detective Felt
intentionally tampered with the investigation file, removing the phone and work
records before he sent the file to Iarocci. (Id., PageID #2293.)
First, the Court will address the search warrant. Detective Felt executed an
affidavit in support of a warrant to search Mr. Artuso’s home on December 13, 2017.
(ECF No. 74, PageID #1162.) The affidavit stated that Mr. Artuso engaged in “proven
criminal activity,” and Mr. Artuso argues that Detective Felt had no factual basis to
include that statement in the affidavit. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1162 & 1166; ECF
No. 89, PageID #2287.) Detective Felt executed the affidavit before Smith even
reported her allegation of rape. And the affidavit and search warrant sought evidence
relating to the theft allegation against Mr. Artuso, not the rape investigation. Even
assuming the falsity of the affidavit, it does not negate the presumption that probable
cause existed for this prosecution.
Next, the Court addresses the litany of investigative failures Plaintiff
identifies. The record demonstrates that Detective Felt failed to take certain steps a
reasonable investigator would take in response to Smith’s allegation, such as
interviewing Mr. Artuso, visiting the crime scene, and analyzing Mr. Artuso’s phone
and works records. (ECF No. 74, PageID #1137, #1142 & #1188–89; ECF No. 73,
PageID #955; ECF No. 84, PageID #2138.) Like the appellants in Lester, Mr. Artuso’s
“fine-tooth combing over every detail seems more suited for arguments to the jury
about why the government did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt” than
arguments to the Court about whether the prosecutor had probable cause to bring
the case. Lester, 986 F.3d at 610. As the Sixth Circuit explained in dicta, “purported
omission[s] of exculpatory evidence,” as opposed to the false statements contemplated
in King, “may not suffice to defeat the presumption [of probable cause].” Id. at 608–
09 (citing King, 852 F.3d at 587). Mr. Artuso points to several concerning omissions.
But King requires more. Detective Felt’s failures are not affirmative false statements
or falsified evidence that defeat the presumption of probable cause the grand jury
indictment created.
In King, the defendant officer picked up a cold murder case. King, 852 F.3d at
573. He applied for a search warrant knowing that no probable cause supported it
because the first investigation team applied for the same warrant with the same
available evidence and it was denied. Id. Also, he ignored forensic evidence of which
he had actual knowledge to assert falsely that plaintiff’s gun was the murder weapon,
while omitting that she could not have disposed of the victim’s body alone as alleged
because she was missing a leg at the hip. Id. at 574–75. Defendants’ investigative
missteps here are not comparable to the defendant’s affirmative “false statement”
and “concomitant omissions” in King.
That leaves Plaintiff’s one affirmative argument that Detective Felt
intentionally tampered with the investigation file. According to Plaintiff, “the
evidence indicates that Defendants actively attempted to conceal the records from the
Prosecutor by tampering with the investigative file.” (ECF No. 89, PageID #2287.)
But Plaintiff does not cite the record in support of this proposition. Review of the
record establishes that Detective Felt acted negligently when he investigated the
alleged theft and alleged rape under the same investigation number and failed to
document what was in the files transmitted to Iraocci’s office. (ECF No. 74, PageID
#1129.) In any event, it is undisputed that Iarocci did not see Mr. Artuso’s work and
cell phone records before he convened the grand jury, even though Detective Felt sent
him the investigatory file. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1373.) Even assuming a genuine
dispute of fact on this point, the missing records at the grand jury stage were not
material to Mr. Artuso’s ultimate prosecution.
II.A.2.iv. Materiality
Under King, the presumption of probable cause remains conclusive unless
Defendants’ “false statements and evidence, together with any concomitant
misleading omissions, are material to the ultimate prosecution of the plaintiff.” King,
852 F.3d at 587–88. “A constitutional violation has occurred if the falsehoods were
necessary to the finding of probable cause, but not if probable cause could have been
independently established.” Caskey v. Fenton, No. 22-3100, 2022 WL 16964963, at
*5 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2022). Judge Iarocci testified that he would have presented the
rape case to the grand jury even if he had seen the allegedly exculpatory work and
cell phone records before he convened the grand jury. (ECF No. 76, PageID
#1379–-80.) Even after he received those records, he did not dismiss the case and
maintained his belief that he could obtain a conviction. (Id. at 1380.) Further, as
described above, the records at issue leave little time—but not no time—for the rape
to have occurred as Smith reported it. Iarocci received additional evidence from
Mr. Artuso and his defense attorney between the grand jury proceeding and trial and
directed investigators to take follow-up steps in response to that evidence. Still, he
chose to bring the case to trial.
As Plaintiff notes, one grand juror asked Detective Felt about why he did not
present records of Mr. Artuso’s work activities on the day in question. (ECF No. 89,
PageID #2294; ECF No. 76, PageID #1454–55.) However, the grand juror asked that
question before Smith herself testified. (ECF No. 76, PageID #1458–76.) The grand
jurors were entitled to evaluate Smith’s credibility in making their decision to indict
Mr. Artuso and apparently found her credible. Even assuming that Detective Felt
altered the file intentionally, the presumption of probable cause the indictment
created remains conclusive because the missing records at the grand jury stage were
not material to Mr. Artuso’s ultimate prosecution for rape.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not rebut the presumption of
probable cause, and Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of law.
II.B. Failure to Intervene
Courts may hold a supervisor liable for the unconstitutional conduct of a
subordinate where the official approved or knowingly acquiesced in the conduct.
Garza v. Lansing Sch. Dist., 972 F.3d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff’s failure to
intervene claim necessarily rests on failure to intervene in the unlawful conduct of
others, and the record shows no such conduct in the form of malicious prosecution.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this
claim.
II.C. Plaintiff’s Monell Claim
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that the City of
Ashtabula cannot be liable under Monell because, even if Plaintiff established a
predicate constitutional violation, he has identified no City policy that is the moving
force behind that violation. (ECF No. 81-1, PageID #2068–69.) Plaintiff counters
that Detective Felt’s actions were “consistent with departmental policy.” (ECF
No. 89, PageID #2292.) Specifically, he argues that Detective Felt was a policymaker
and that there was a departmental policy not to make an independent determination
of probable cause before sending an investigation to the prosecutor’s office. (ECF
No. 89, PageID #2296.) Because Plaintiff has not established a predicate
constitutional violation, even if he has sufficiently placed a Monell claim at issue, that
claim fails as a matter of law.
III. State-Law Claims
Having dismissed the federal claims against Defendants, the Court considers
whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims. A
court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that “form part of
the same case or controversy” as any claim over which the court has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Further, Section 1367(c)(3) provides that a district
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “(1) the claim raises a
novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the
claims or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district
court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in
exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
jurisdiction.” In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the district
court should consider factors such as “comity, judicial economy, convenience, and
fairness.” Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Corp., 196 F.3d 617, 620–21 (6th
Cir. 1999). Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiff’s
federal claims, which are the only claims over which the Court has original
jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
State law claims.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion with
respect to Claims One and Two. The Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State-law claims and, therefore, DISMISSES those
claims without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 2022
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
34