Brenda Bickerstaff v. Vincent Lucarelli
830 F.3d 388
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Brenda Bickerstaff, a private investigator, was indicted by a grand jury in April 2012 for intimidating a crime victim/witness and telecommunications harassment based on a complaint by Jasmine Harris; the charges were dismissed the next month.
- Bickerstaff alleged Detective Vincent Lucarelli had personal/sexual relationships with female victims (including Harris) and that he used the criminal process to cover up those relationships by causing false accusations against her.
- She sued Lucarelli, supervising/officer colleagues (Hill, Legg, McDuffie), the City of Cleveland, and others asserting malicious prosecution, abuse of process, retaliation, civil conspiracy, municipal liability, and related state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed most claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead lack of probable cause or factual detail; three claims against Lucarelli (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, civil conspiracy) survived the pleadings but later judgment was entered for Lucarelli on summary judgment.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed: it reviewed the 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo, deemed Bickerstaff to have forfeited any appellate challenge to the summary-judgment ruling against Lucarelli, and rejected her claims for failure to plead specific facts undermining the indictment or showing the required misconduct, agreement, or municipal policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (state & federal) | Bickerstaff: indictment was procured by false/omitted material facts (Lucarelli’s relationships and baseless evidence), so probable cause is rebutted. | Defendants: grand‑jury indictment is prima facie probable cause; no specific allegations or evidence of perjury or irregular grand‑jury proceedings. | Dismissed — pleadings are conclusory; no specific factual allegations showing lack of probable cause or grand‑jury irregularity. |
| Retaliatory prosecution (First Amendment) | Bickerstaff: prosecution was motivated by retaliation for her contacting Harris (protected association). | Defendants: probable cause existed; absence of particularized facts undermining indictment defeats retaliation claim. | Dismissed — retaliation fails without plausible showing that indictment lacked probable cause. |
| Abuse of process | Bickerstaff: process was perverted to accomplish an ulterior purpose (retaliation/cover‑up). | Defendants: no facts showing the process was perverted or that defendants acted with an ulterior purpose; mere bad intent insufficient. | Dismissed — allegations are conclusory; no factual showings that process was misused. |
| Civil conspiracy (against Hill, Legg, McDuffie) | Bickerstaff: officers agreed to present false evidence/statements to obtain indictment and cover up Lucarelli’s conduct. | Defendants: complaint lacks particularized allegations of an agreement, shared objective, or overt acts; text messages do not show falsity or conspiracy. | Dismissed — conspiracy claims lack the required specificity and material factual support. |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | Bickerstaff: City maintained a policy/custom of tolerating or failing to discipline officers, causing the violation. | Defendants: single or conclusory allegations do not show a persistent pattern, constructive knowledge, or deliberate indifference by the City. | Dismissed — no factual allegations showing a municipal policy/custom or causal link to constitutional violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (requirement that pleading contain factual enhancement beyond legal conclusions)
- Harris v. Bornhorst, 513 F.3d 503 (6th Cir.) (elements and probable‑cause discussion for malicious prosecution)
- Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709 (6th Cir.) (indictment by a properly constituted grand jury conclusively establishes probable cause absent presentation of false testimony)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (retaliatory‑prosecution claims require showing absence of probable cause)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom causally linked to constitutional deprivation)
- Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, 412 F.3d 669 (6th Cir.) (abuse‑of‑process and related standards)