Deborah Hagedorn v. David Cattani
16-4254
| 6th Cir. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- Deborah Hagedorn, a Timberlake, Ohio resident, investigated and criticized village police practices and officials (Mayor David Cattani, Police Chief David Phillips, Officer Geoffrey Esser).
- On July 11, 2013, Esser encountered Hagedorn surveilling the village service garage; after a loud/abusive exchange witnessed by nearby resident George Transky, Esser took a report and Hagedorn was cited for disorderly conduct; a magistrate later acquitted her at bench trial, finding calling an officer an “asshole” was protected speech but probable cause existed to charge.
- Between Oct 2014 and July 2015, Hagedorn repeatedly emailed Cattani’s personal account after he twice and repeatedly asked her to stop and use his official village email; Cattani reported this as harassment and four telecommunications-harassment charges under Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.21(A)(5) were filed; Hagedorn was acquitted by a jury on those counts.
- Hagedorn sued Cattani, Esser, and Phillips under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and under Article I, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution for state-law free-speech retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants; Phillips later died and was dismissed from the appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered qualified immunity for Cattani and Esser; it analyzed whether each charge was supported by probable cause and whether Hagedorn’s speech was a motivating factor sufficient to establish retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pursuing disorderly conduct charge violated First Amendment (retaliation) | Hagedorn: citation was retaliation for protected criticism of police | Esser: probable cause existed because resident complained of loud/disruptive conduct | Held: No constitutional violation; probable cause existed (Esser entitled to qualified immunity) |
| Whether pursuing telecommunications-harassment charges violated First Amendment (retaliation) | Hagedorn: emails were protected speech on public matters; prosecution was retaliatory | Cattani/Esser: Hagedorn continued emailing his personal account after clear requests not to; statute covers unwanted communications regardless of content | Held: No constitutional violation; probable cause existed; defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether Article I, Section 11 of Ohio Constitution supplies a private cause of action for speech retaliation | Hagedorn: state-constitutional free-speech violation supports private damages action | Defendants: Ohio law does not recognize a private cause of action under Art. I, § 11; other remedies suffice | Held: Ohio does not recognize a private cause of action under Article I, § 11; state-law claim dismissed |
| Whether defendants acted under color of state law for § 1983 purposes | Hagedorn: submitting complaints to police was state action used to retaliate | Cattani: argued he was not acting under color of state law (private actor) | Held: Court did not decide because probable cause defeated § 1983 claim; qualified immunity resolved claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 766 F.3d 532 (6th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir.) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (probable cause element in retaliatory-prosecution claims)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (First Amendment protects verbal criticism of police)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970) (recipient’s right to exclude unwanted communications)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (government’s interest in regulating unwelcome noise)
- Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647 (6th Cir.) (probable cause standard)
- In re Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir.) (adopt narrower state-law interpretations to avoid expanding liability)