Laurie Range v. Kenneth Douglas
763 F.3d 573
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kenneth Douglas, morgue attendant, sexually abused deceased bodies at Hamilton County Morgue while intoxicated.
- Abuses included victims Karen Range (1982), Charlene Appling (1991), and Angel Hicks (1991).
- Douglas worked largely unsupervised; complaints about tardiness, reliability, and alcohol/drug use were raised to supervisors.
- Supervisors Kersker (morgue director) and Cleveland (coroner) knew of Douglas’s issues but allegedly took insufficient supervisory actions.
- District court granted partial summary judgment to County Defendants on some state claims and on §1983 claim; immunity determinations were contested on interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio statutory immunity applies to the 1991 abuse claims | Plaintiffs contend immunity should not bar claims | County argues immunity applies under § 2744.03(A)(5) for recklessness/wantonness | Immunity denied for 1991 claims; genuine issues of wanton/reckless conduct remain |
| Whether (A)(3) discretionary-function immunity applies to supervision decisions | Decisions reflected policy-making discretion foreclosing immunity | Actions were ordinary supervisory decisions, not policy-making | District court did not err denying (A)(3) immunity; supervision decisions not policy-making |
| Whether Kersker and Cleveland are entitled to individual immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6)(b) | Kersker/Cleveland knowingly ignored risk; deliberate indifference established | Plaintiffs fail to show awareness of substantial risk or deliberate indifference | No qualified immunity for Kersker/Cleveland; issues for trial as to deliberate indifference |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ §1983 substantive due process claim survives against the County | Rights to family privacy/remembrance implicated; conduct shocks conscience | No clearly established right and no conscience-shocking conduct by officials | No §1983 claim; district court's summary judgment for County stands |
| Whether the Board of Commissioners and other officials are proper parties on appeal | Cross-appeal dismissed; proper parties determined in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Tompkins v. Crown Corr., Inc., 726 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2013) (overlaps of state immunity and federal procedure)
- EJS Props., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845 (6th Cir. 2012) (substantive due process and shocks-the-conscience framework)
- Lambert v. Clancy, 927 N.E.2d 585 (Ohio 2010) (three-tier immunity analysis for political subdivisions)