Hughes v. Opel, 1:23-cv-01974

Plaintiff Richard Robert Hughes, proceeding pro se, sued various City of Cumberland officials and employees after an altercation at an M&T Bank where he was arrested following a 911 call alleging disruptive behavior.
Defendants included police officers, the police chief, an assistant state's attorney, a 911 dispatcher, and city officials. The court consolidated multiple complaints Hughes filed.
Hughes alleged constitutional violations and numerous other claims arising from his arrest, charging, and prosecution, including defamation, IIED, fraud, and conspiracy.
Charges against Hughes were ultimately dropped, but he alleged significant personal and professional harm as a result of the false charges and arrest.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment; Hughes filed oppositions and sought to enter additional exhibits.
The court reviewed all pleadings and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on all claims, dismissing the complaints in their entirety with prejudice where appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial immunity	Lysinger wrongfully prosecuted and withheld evidence	Actions were within her prosecutorial role	Absolutely immune; claims dismissed
Unlawful arrest and Fourth Amendment	Arrest was without probable cause, based on false info	Police acted on valid 911 report, had probable cause	No claim stated; arrest was justified
Defamation/Slander/Libel	False statements made to police/public	Claims time-barred, not actionable	Time-barred; dismissed with prejudice
Monell/Official Capacity Liability	City and officials failed to train/supervise properly	No official policy/custom caused injury; no facts pled	No viable underlying violation; dismissed
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress	Distress caused by unlawful arrest in mother's presence	Lawful arrest cannot be outrageous or extreme	No extreme/outrageous conduct; dismissed
Other federal and state law claims	Raised claims under Constitutional Amendments, UDHR, FOIA, MPIA, conspiracy, fraud, etc.	Various immunities, lack of private right, lack of jurisdiction or facts	All found non-cognizable, time-barred, or insufficient; all dismissed

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement for complaints)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings receive less stringent review)
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutorial immunity for actions within judicial process)
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (prosecutors immune from § 1983 liability for certain actions)
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (probable cause requirement for arrest)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful arrest)
Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520 (excessive force and unlawful arrest standards)