Andre Johnson v. Jeremy Moseley
790 F.3d 649
6th Cir.2015Background
- Andre Johnson, a former Nashville police officer, was arrested twice in 2012 on domestic-violence complaints by his estranged wife and acquitted at trial in 2013.
- Johnson sued his wife, Officers Jeremy Moseley and Laura Thomas, and the Metropolitan Government, alleging federal malicious prosecution and other claims; the wife was not served.
- Moseley and Thomas moved to dismiss Johnson’s federal malicious-prosecution claim on qualified-immunity grounds; the district court denied that part of the motion.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews denial of qualified immunity at the pleading stage de novo and requires plaintiffs to plead specific, nonconclusory facts showing a violation of clearly established law.
- To state a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim a plaintiff must allege: (1) participation in the decision to prosecute, (2) lack of probable cause, (3) post-release liberty deprivation, and (4) favorable termination.
- The panel concluded Johnson’s complaint failed to allege Moseley or Thomas engaged in blameworthy post-arrest conduct (e.g., deliberate/reckless false testimony, withholding exculpatory evidence, or active non-neutral pressure on prosecutors) sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges officers "influenced or participated" in prosecution after probable cause ceased | Johnson: inconsistencies in victim’s medical/accusation records and departmental policies show officers pressed prosecution despite lack of probable cause | Moseley & Thomas: no allegations of personal, blameworthy post-arrest conduct (no false/reckless testimony, no deliberate nondisclosure, only collective/neutral assertions) | Held for defendants: complaint fails to plead personal, blameworthy participation sufficient to deny qualified immunity |
| Whether alleged inconsistencies in accuser’s statements negated probable cause | Johnson: inconsistencies meant probable cause had ceased | Officers: inconsistencies do not necessarily defeat probable cause; jury acquittal ≠ lack of probable cause | Held for defendants: alleged inconsistencies, even if weakening credibility, do not compel inference that probable cause ceased |
| Whether Rule 8 notice pleading sufficed to permit discovery over qualified immunity defense | Johnson: factual allegations (though sparse) justify discovery to uncover supporting facts | Officers: plaintiff must plead specific nonconclusory facts to overcome qualified immunity; discovery should be avoided absent plausible claim | Held for defendants: dismissal required where pleading lacks particularized facts showing violation of clearly established law |
| Whether the right was clearly established in a particularized sense | Johnson: constitutional right against malicious prosecution is established | Officers: right must be defined in context and require allegations of deliberate or reckless conduct | Held for defendants: right exists generally, but plaintiff failed to plead facts showing violation of clearly established law in particularized context |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (malicious-prosecution elements and need for active, blameworthy participation)
- Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2014) (false testimony actionable only if deliberate or reckless)
- Newman v. Township of Hamburg, 773 F.3d 769 (6th Cir. 2014) (officer violates clearly established right only when deliberate/reckless falsehoods lead to prosecution without probable cause)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (requirement that complaints plead specific, nonconclusory factual allegations)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity overview; early resolution preferred)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established law must be particularized)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity is immunity from suit; dismissal prior to discovery where appropriate)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (deliberate falsehood requirement in warrant contexts)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (rights must be defined in light of specific context for qualified-immunity analysis)