545 F. App'x 435
6th Cir.2013Background
- Brown sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law for alleged Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations and conspiracy stemming from Operation Turnaround, a Richland County Sheriff's Office drug investigation that framed 22 defendants including Brown.
- Brown allegedly participated in a drug buy with confidential informant Bray in November 2005; Brown was later charged in March 2006 with drug offenses and acquitted in July 2006; Bray later admitted the drug buy never occurred.
- Defendants Lucas, Cross, Metcalf, Mayer, Faith, and Ansari moved for summary judgment; after discovery Brown argued only Brady violations and conspiracy, not Fourth Amendment claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity for the six defendants, finding Brown’s Brady claims failed due to acquittal and that Brown inadequately alleged a conspiracy or specified rights against particular defendants.
- Brown sought reconsideration, urging malicious prosecution and unlawful detention; the district court denied, noting Brown failed to raise those arguments during the briefing period.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Brown waived Fourth Amendment claims and related arguments because they were not raised or developed below, and no extraordinary circumstances justified bypassing waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on qualified immunity. | Brown | Lucas et al. | Yes; qualified immunity granted. |
| Whether Brady claims survive given Brown's acquittal. | Brown | Lucas et al. | Brady claims fail; no constitutional violation shown. |
| Whether Brown's Fourth Amendment claims were waived on appeal due to not being raised below. | Brown | Lucas et al. | Waived; not raised below and no exceptional justification. |
| Whether reconsideration should have allowed addressing Fourth Amendment claims on the merits. | Brown | Lucas et al. | Not justified; reconsideration denied and waiver upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmonds v. Genesee Cnty., 682 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2012) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis)
- Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 1994) (evidence burden for genuine issues on summary judgment)
- Estate of Carter v. City of Detroit, 408 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2005) (two-step analysis of constitutional rights and clearly established law)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2008) (waiver principle for issues not raised below)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court 1976) (ordinary waiver of issues not passed upon below)
- Skousen v. Brighton High School, 305 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard for presenting genuine issues of material fact on summary judgment)