Geer v. Ginocchio, 1:17-cv-00214

Plaintiff Douglas Geer, an Ohio inmate, filed a pro se § 1983 action challenging the retention of personal property seized during a 2015 search that led to his arrest and conviction.
Defendants named: Hamilton County prosecutor Jacqueline Ginocchio, Price Hill police officers David Hall and John Dotson, and Price Hill Police Department District #3.
Facts: on Feb. 20, 2015 police and probation officers searched a residence, opened plaintiff’s safe, found a stolen handgun, seized the safe and contents, and arrested Geer.
At Geer’s March 9, 2015 trial Ginocchio allegedly told him he would get his property back; later the Price Hill PD would not release the items without a court document.
On June 30, 2016 a trial judge issued an entry ordering return of the property on Aug. 11, 2016, but the property was not returned despite attempts by family members.
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a § 1983 claim—claims against officers time-barred; municipal unit not sui juris; no plausible Monell claim; and no allegation that state post-deprivation remedies were inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of claims against Hall and Dotson	Geer challenges seizure/retention of property stemming from 2015 search	Officers argue claims accrued at seizure and are time-barred under Ohio two-year statute	Dismissed: § 1983 claims against Hall and Dotson are time-barred
Prosecutor liability (Ginocchio)	Geer alleges Ginocchio stated he would get his property back at trial	Ginocchio had no role in later retention; prosecutor activities are prosecutorial	Dismissed: allegation insufficient to state misconduct or causal role
Suitability of Price Hill Police Department as defendant	Geer sued the police department for failing to return ordered property	Defendants note municipal/police department is not sui juris; no Monell policy/custom alleged	Dismissed: Police department lacks capacity; no Monell-level policy or custom alleged
Due process claim for post-order retention of property	Geer alleges state employees refused to return property despite judge’s order	Defendants assert any deprivation was random/unauthorized and state post-deprivation remedies exist	Dismissed: Parratt/Hudson doctrine applies; plaintiff failed to allege inadequacy or unavailability of state remedies

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed as frivolous)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (legal standard for frivolous pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1989) (Ohio two-year statute governs § 1983 accrual)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual rules for § 1983 false arrest/incarceration claims)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (affirmative defenses may justify dismissal at screening when clear on face)
Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (random/unauthorized deprivations require showing inadequacy of state remedies)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Parratt doctrine applies to intentional and negligent deprivations)
Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff must plead inadequacy of state post-deprivation remedies in § 1983 property claims)