Cameron Garner v. Jessica Harrod, 656 F. App'x 755

Background

In Feb 2012, Jessica Harrod reported that her 4‑year‑old son A.M. said his step‑grandfather, Cameron Garner, had inappropriately touched him; Licking County Children Services caseworker Amy Reedy interviewed A.M. and obtained similar statements.
Muskingum County Detective Fred Curry investigated; a grand jury indicted Cameron Garner (gross sexual imposition) and Christina Garner and Audrey Moreland (child endangering); warrants issued and arrests followed.
Prosecutor later dismissed the charges against Christina Garner and Moreland; charges against Cameron Garner were dismissed at trial after the court found A.M. incompetent to testify and excluded his prior statements as hearsay.
Plaintiffs (the Garners, Morelands, and related parties) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort theories alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, due process violations from deficient investigation/policies, and related claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
On appeal the plaintiffs challenged only malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, and Monell‑style due process claims; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of probable cause created by the grand jury indictment and failed to plead or prove a constitutionally cognizable due process violation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Malicious prosecution (§ 1983)	Defendants initiated prosecution despite lack of probable cause and defective investigation; evidence presented included excluded child statements.	Grand jury indictment establishes probable cause; plaintiffs offer no evidence defendants knowingly/recklessly presented false testimony to grand jury.	Affirmed for defendants — plaintiffs failed to rebut presumption of probable cause from grand jury; no evidence of deliberate/reckless false testimony.
False arrest / false imprisonment	Arrests pursuant to warrants were wrongful because probable cause was lacking.	Arrest on facially valid warrants is complete defense absent deliberate/reckless falsehoods in obtaining the warrants.	Affirmed for defendants — warrants/grand jury indictment insulated defendants; plaintiffs produced no proof of material false statements/omissions.
Procedural due process (Monell claim)	Plaintiffs allege a right to minimally competent investigations and that policies/practices caused violations.	No constitutional right to a particular manner of investigation; plaintiffs point to no specific municipal policy and cannot show a constitutional violation.	Affirmed for defendants — no protected liberty/property interest in investigation manner; no evidence of policy causing violation.
Substantive due process	Investigation was so defective or conscience‑shocking as to violate substantive due process.	Investigation was rationally related to the legitimate interest of protecting a child; no conscience‑shocking conduct alleged.	Affirmed for defendants — plaintiffs did not allege or prove deprivation of a specific constitutional guarantee or conscience‑shocking behavior.

Key Cases Cited

Troche v. Crabtree, 814 F.3d 795 (6th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and drawing inferences)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and scintilla rule)
Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements of § 1983 malicious prosecution and exception for false grand jury evidence)
Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 2014) (grand jury indictment conclusively determines probable cause absent deliberate/reckless falsehoods)
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (recognition of due process claim for prosecution based on deliberately fabricated evidence)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (Monell standards for municipal liability)