Candido Romo v. Jeff Largen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14878
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Romo was found intoxicated and asleep in the driver’s seat of his parked pickup; his brother had taken his keys earlier and Romo said he had not been driving.
- Officer Largen approached, questioned Romo about passing a semi at a railroad crossing, performed field sobriety tests, and arrested Romo for operating while intoxicated; Romo’s charges were later dismissed.
- Largen’s police report claimed he observed a tan Dodge Ram pass a semi in a no-passing zone, that the truck’s hood was warm, and that he then pulled behind the truck; his later account acknowledged losing sight of the truck during U-turns before finding Romo in a parking lot.
- Romo sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (false arrest, malicious prosecution, brief equal-protection reference) and alleged state-law intentional torts (false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution).
- The district court denied Largen’s summary-judgment motion asserting qualified and governmental immunity, finding genuine factual disputes (including that Largen may have fabricated parts of his account); Largen appealed interlocutorily.
- The Sixth Circuit (majority) affirmed denial of qualified immunity and denial of governmental immunity on state-law claims (reversing only denial re: federal malicious-prosecution claim that Romo later abandoned), applying Johnson v. Jones limitations on interlocutory appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for false-arrest (§ 1983): was there probable cause to arrest Romo for OUI? | Romo: no probable cause — he had no keys, stated he was not driving, and produced a plausible explanation; officer may have fabricated observation. | Largen: reasonably but mistakenly believed he saw the truck commit a traffic violation and thus had probable cause. | Court: Affirmed denial of qualified immunity — accepting district court’s factual-findings posture (interlocutory limits) a jury could disbelieve officer; no reasonable officer could lawfully arrest under these circumstances. |
| Governmental immunity for state intentional torts (malice/good-faith): did Largen act in good faith? | Romo: Largen lacked evidence and may have lied; malice can be inferred; no good-faith probable cause. | Largen: acted in good faith, believed he had probable cause. | Court: Denied governmental immunity — jury could find malice and lack of probable cause; officer not entitled to immunity. |
| Federal malicious-prosecution claim (bond conditions, continued deprivation): did claim survive? | Romo: bond conditions and prosecution sufficed to allege deprivation supporting malicious-prosecution. | Largen: qualified immunity and dismissal of claim. | Court: Reversed denial of qualified immunity on this claim because Romo abandoned it; claim not pursued. |
| Appellate jurisdiction under Johnson v. Jones: may appellate court review district court’s fact-inference determinations on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal? | Romo: district court’s credibility/fact-inference findings create triable issues; appeal improper. | Largen: challenges the district court’s inferences; seeks interlocutory review to overturn factual findings. | Held: Majority applies Johnson — must accept district court’s assumed facts on interlocutory review; Scott v. Harris narrow exception not triggered; therefore qualified-immunity defense fails as a matter of what is before the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (limits interlocutory appeals of qualified-immunity denials to legal issues; appellate courts must accept district court’s assumed facts when ruling)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (appellate courts may reject district-court factual inferences when the record blatantly and demonstrably contradicts the nonmoving party’s version)
- Nettles-Nickerson v. Free, 687 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2012) (officer may infer operation where vehicle is running and driver can immediately drive away; contrasted with Romo who lacked keys)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity is immediately appealable because it protects from trial)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (Saucier order of decision on qualified immunity is not mandatory; courts may decide prongs in either order)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (discusses interlocutory appealability and the interplay of factual determinations and appellate review)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (framework for interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under § 1291)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459 (2008) (Michigan governmental-immunity standard — good faith vs. malice for discretionary acts)