Chris Davis v. James Gallagher, 951 F.3d 743

Background

Plaintiff Chris Davis, an African-American prisoner, alleges corrections officer James Gallagher planted heroin on him after a racially charged verbal exchange; Davis was placed in administrative segregation and later acquitted at trial of heroin possession.
Gallagher reported finding a napkin with a rock-like substance that tested as heroin; Davis consistently told investigators and in his deposition that Gallagher planted the drugs.
The state magistrate found probable cause based on officer reports and lab results; the prosecutor charged Davis; a jury later acquitted him.
Davis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting Eighth Amendment, First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment/malicious prosecution (federal and state law), and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims; many claims were dismissed at screening.
The district court granted summary judgment to Gallagher on malicious prosecution, concluding Davis offered no evidence that Gallagher planted or falsified evidence; the court also dismissed Davis’s First Amendment and substantive due process claims.
The Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment on malicious prosecution (finding a genuine factual dispute about falsification/probable cause), and affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment claim (waiver) and the substantive due process claim (duplicative of Fourth Amendment claim).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state probable-cause finding precludes Davis from relitigating lack of probable cause in malicious prosecution claim	Darrah-type claim: state finding was influenced by falsified evidence; Davis produced evidence (his statements, investigator notes) that Gallagher planted heroin	Preclusion applies because magistrate found probable cause; Davis did not explicitly allege falsification at the preliminary hearing	No preclusion: factual dispute about falsification defeats preclusion; Davis not barred from litigating lack of probable cause
Whether probable cause existed such that malicious prosecution fails	Davis says Gallagher planted heroin and falsified reports; thus no probable cause	Gallagher points to magistrate finding, lab result, and Davis’s admission he held something (seasoning) as supporting probable cause	Reversed summary judgment: evidence (though self-serving) creates a genuine dispute for jury on whether Gallagher planted evidence and knew probable-cause evidence was false
Whether the district court exceeded its authority by conducting a second screening under § 1997e(c)(1) after § 1915A screening	Davis contends second screening was improper and beyond court’s initial § 1915A screening	Court relied on § 1997e(c)(1) authority to dismiss prison-conditions claims sua sponte even after initial § 1915A screening	Affirmed: § 1997e(c)(1) permits district court to dismiss prisoner claims on its own motion post-initial screening
Whether First Amendment retaliation and substantive due process claims should have survived	Davis argues retaliation for threatening grievance and substantive-due-process based on officers’ conduct	District court: First Amendment claim waived (no objection to R&R); substantive due process duplicative of Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution (Lanier)	Affirmed: First Amendment claim waived; substantive due process properly dismissed as duplicative of specific Fourth Amendment protection

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment and assessing genuine disputes of material fact)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (court may disregard testimony blatantly contradicted by objective evidence)
Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2001) (state probable-cause finding does not preclude § 1983 falsification claims)
Peet v. City of Detroit, 502 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must produce evidence of falsification to avoid preclusion under Darrah)
France v. Lucas, 836 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2016) (officer falsification bears on malicious prosecution in § 1983 cases)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (background on PLRA and prisoner litigation controls)
Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (2014) (probable-cause hearings often do not disclose full defense strategy)
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (claims covered by a specific constitutional provision must be analyzed under that provision)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (‘‘shocks the conscience’’ standard for substantive due process)