Angelo DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville Ohio
796 F.3d 604
6th Cir.2015Background
- Angelo DiLuzio owned three adjoining downtown Yorkville buildings that burned under suspicious circumstances; Village officials ordered immediate partial demolition without inspection or pre-demolition process.
- Mayor John DiFilippo directed demolition and deployed pressure tactics (including anonymous low-ball purchase offers conveyed by Police Chief John Morelli) to induce DiLuzio to sell.
- Police Chief Morelli and others issued and forged fire citations, filed and withdrew criminal complaints, and used false notary and State Fire Marshal letterhead.
- Officer Jerry Davis allegedly seized DiLuzio against his will and transported him to a meeting.
- DiLuzio sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural and substantive due process, conspiracy), plus state-law claims; the district court denied qualified immunity for several defendants and denied summary judgment on related claims.
- The Sixth Circuit accepted the plaintiff’s version of contested facts for purposes of the interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal and affirmed the district court’s denials of qualified immunity and state-law immunity on the record presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — Morelli | Morelli used official power (forged citations, low-ball offers, prosecutions) to harm DiLuzio and coerce a sale, shocking the conscience. | Morelli acted to abate a nuisance and did not violate substantive due process. | Denied qualified immunity; record evidence could allow a jury to find intent to injure and conscience-shocking conduct. |
| Fourth Amendment seizure — Officer Davis | Davis physically seized DiLuzio and transported him despite refusal. | Davis gave DiLuzio a ride at his request; no seizure. | Denied qualified immunity; plaintiff’s evidence could show an unreasonable seizure. |
| Procedural due process — DiFilippo/Klubert (demolition) | Demolition was pretextual, not an emergency; officials used emergency authority to avoid predeprivation process. | Demolition was an emergency action authorized by statute (Parratt/Harris apply), so predeprivation process was unnecessary. | Denied qualified immunity; plaintiff produced evidence that the emergency was pretextual so Parratt/Harris did not apply. |
| Municipal/conspiracy and intracorporate doctrine | Officials conspired to misuse authority to deprive DiLuzio of property; municipal liability follows from final policymakers. | Intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine bars § 1983 conspiracy among municipal actors acting within scope of employment. | Denied dismissal; court held doctrine either inapplicable or inapplicable here because alleged acts were outside employment scope; jury could find conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine dispute standard)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (appealability of qualified-immunity denials)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (limits on interlocutory review of fact-based challenges)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (appellate review when record blatantly contradicts plaintiff)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (scope of appellate review of factual inferences in qualified-immunity appeals)
- Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675 (Sixth Circuit on qualified immunity burden at summary judgment)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (postdeprivation remedies and random/unauthorized acts)
- Harris v. City of Akron, 20 F.3d 1396 (Sixth Circuit on emergency/predeprivation process)