Cooper v. Youngstown
2016 Ohio 7184
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 17, 2012, Officer Brad Ditullio attempted a traffic stop of Cooper for expired tags; Cooper fled, struck the officer with his car, and dragged him before the officer fired three shots through the passenger window, wounding Cooper.
- Cooper pleaded guilty (July 24, 2013) to felonious assault and failure to comply and was sentenced to five years; he did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
- Cooper (pro se, incarcerated) filed a civil suit alleging excessive force against the City of Youngstown, its Director of Public Safety, and the police department; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Defendants argued (1) Heck bar (plaintiff's conviction precludes damages claim), (2) no municipal policy/custom shown for a §1983 claim, (3) political-subdivision immunity under Ohio law for any state claims, and (4) the police department and director were not sui juris.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Cooper appealed but filed a nonconforming brief and presented no evidentiary materials on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooper can pursue damages for alleged excessive force arising from the incident that led to his convictions | Cooper contends force was excessive and challenges officer conduct | Defendants invoke Heck bar because the alleged misconduct is intertwined with convictions Cooper did not overturn | Court: Heck bars Cooper's §1983 damages claim because his convictions remain valid |
| Whether a municipal liability claim under §1983 was supported | Cooper asserted wrongdoing by YPD/YDPS but offered no evidence of policy/custom | Defendants: no evidence that a municipal policy or custom caused the alleged violation | Court: No municipal liability — Cooper failed to show policy or custom |
| Whether defendants are immune from state-law claims | Cooper did not identify applicable exceptions to statutory immunity | Defendants: political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744.02 shields them from state claims | Court: Political-subdivision immunity applies; no exception shown to waive immunity |
| Whether YPD and YDPS have capacity to be sued | Cooper named YPD and YDPS as defendants | Defendants: police department and department head are not separate legal entities; real party is the city | Court: YPD and YDPS are not sui juris; summary judgment for those named defendants was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (a §1983 plaintiff cannot recover damages that would imply the invalidity of a conviction unless the conviction has first been invalidated)
- Lee v. Cleveland, 151 Ohio App.3d 581 (Ohio Ct. App.) (municipal liability under §1983 requires showing a policy or custom was the driving force behind the constitutional violation)
- Roe v. Franklin Cty., 109 Ohio App.3d 772 (Ohio Ct. App.) (same principle regarding municipal liability under §1983)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (standards for summary judgment review in Ohio)