# Steve Lucsik v. Board of Education of the Brunswick City School District

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 1980 · 621 F.2d 841

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466727

## Case

- **Full name:** Steve LUCSIK Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the BRUNSWICK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 22, 1980
- **Citations:** 621 F.2d 841; 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2537; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17304
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Jones
- **Judges:** Merritt, Martin, Jones
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466727

## Opinion text

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion completely misses the point of this case. We are not concerned with the wrongful issuance of an injunction by a federal court. Therefore, the cases cited in the majority opinion in which a party sought to recover bond following the wrongful issuance of an injunction in federal court are inapposite. Nor are we concerned with the assertion of a legal argument by an attorney. Plaintiffs have alleged that the Board acting through its attorneys purposely and falsely misrepresented facts before the State court, causing the prolonged imprisonment of the plaintiffs.
The issue in the case is whether the plaintiffs’ allegations state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . To state a claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege facts which would establish at least two elements: 1) that they have been deprived of a right protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and 2) that the defendants have acted under color of law in depriving them of this right. Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau, 600 F.2d 570, 576 (6th Cir. 1979). Clearly the Board was acting under color of state law in seeking to enjoin the teachers’ strike. Misuse of the legal procedure, which is a state law tort, may deprive a person of his federal constitutional right to procedural due process in egregious circumstances. Norton v. Liddel, 620 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir., 1980); Jennings v. Shuman, 567 F.2d 1213 (3rd Cir. 1977). 1 Construing the complaint favorably to the plaintiffs, as we must in considering a motion to dismiss, I would hold that Paragraph 13 of their complaint sufficiently alleges a deprivation of their constitutional right to procedural due process. 2 The complaint alleges that the Board through its attorneys falsely and purposefully misrepresented facts before the State court to deprive the plaintiffs of liberty. Such a purposeful subversion of the judicial process, if true, would state a claim under § 1983.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
. The Supreme Court of Ohio has reversed the civil contempt convictions of the teachers. Board of Education v. Brunswick Education Association, 61 Ohio St.2d 290 , 401 N.E.2d 440 (1980). The Ohio Supreme Court specifically found that the teachers had not been adjudged to be in contempt at the time of their imprisonment.
. The complaint reads:
A hearing was granted that same day by the Medina County Court of Appeals Ninth Judicial District. At that hearing, Defendant Board of Education, through its attorney, falsely represented to the Court of Appeals, for the purpose of creating the appearance of a material dispute as to facts and for the improper purpose of continuing Plaintiffs’ unlawful deprivation of liberty, that the trial court had found Plaintiffs guilty of contempt and had ordered their imprisonment upon such finding of contempt. The representation by Defendants’ attorney was false and untrue, as the trial court made no findings of contempt.
App. 8.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466727. Public record. Not legal advice.