Jones v. Norwood
2013 Ohio 350
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jones and Waller occupied a one-bedroom apartment in Norwood under a Talbert House subsidy, with a lease listing Jones; IPMC/Building Code allowed four residents.
- KOPS group, including Stoker (Building Commissioner) and Lewis (Police Sergeant), inspected 2000 Maple Ave on Oct 6, 2010 due to complaints and police-reported problem property status.
- During the inspection, occupants were given notices of intent to vacate for overcrowding with a 5:00 p.m. deadline and no right to cure, and no predeprivation hearing occurred.
- Jones and Waller were told they faced arrest if they did not vacate; they left, stayed in a hotel, and later observed retroactive vacate orders and placards posted on doors.
- Jones sought relief; a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were entered, rescinding vacate orders and guaranteeing access; Jones eventually moved out in Jan 2011; Waller dismissed claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds; the trial court granted immunity-based relief to the City but denied others; Jones pursued 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state-law claims seeking damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stoker and Lewis are immune on state-law claims | Stoker/Lewis lacked personal immunity for intentional torts. | Stoker/Lewis entitled to immunity under RC 2744.03(A)(6). | Stoker/Lewis not entitled to official-capacity immunity; personal-immunity issues for IIED remain; state-law immunity denied for some claims. |
| Whether Stoker and Lewis are entitled to federal qualified immunity | Defendants violated clearly established due-process rights without exigent circumstances. | Acting under discretionary authority; qualified immunity should bar claims absent clearly established rights. | Stoker denied qualified-immunity for procedural due process; Lewis denied for factual questions; presumption of vulnerability to predeprivation hearing; disputed facts remain. |
| Whether Jones had protected property interests and required predeprivation process | Jones had a leasehold property interest needing predeprivation hearing absent exigent circumstances. | Emergency order justified by building-code provisions; no predeprivation hearing required. | Jones had a property interest; no exigent circumstances supported an emergency order; predeprivation hearing required; Stoker violated due process. |
| Whether the city is liable for procedural-due-process violations | Municipal liability under §1983 for a policy/custom leading to deprivation. | Qualified immunity and no policy or custom established liability beyond individual acts. | Partial summary judgment granted on procedural-due-process claim against the city; liability issues against Stoker/Lewis remain for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbell v. City of Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77 (2007-Ohio-4839) (appeals review of immunity denials under RC 2744.02(C))
- Summerville v. City of Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221 (2010-Ohio-6280) (final appeal on immunity; two-step qualified-immunity framework)
- Flatford v. City of Monroe, 17 F.3d 162 (6th Cir.1994) (predeprivation hearing necessity; exigent circumstances require very prompt action)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (predeprivation notice/hearing in eviction context; exceptions for emergencies)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies Saucier; order of analysis for qualified immunity)
- Thomas v. Cohen, 304 F.3d 563 (6th Cir.2002) (property interests defined by state law; basis for entitlement)
- Anderson v. City of Massillon, 2012-Ohio-5711 (Ohio) (definitions of wanton, reckless, and bad-faith standards for immunity)