450 F. App'x 440
6th Cir.2011Background
- Hanner, proceeding pro se, sued the City of Dearborn Heights and city officials under §1983 for Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment violations related to a 1991 building permit dispute and subsequent jail time.
- A final inspection in 1992 revealed Hanner built a brick veneer, not a glass enclosure; he was told to obtain a second permit and pay $264 but not given a new permit number or receipt.
- Hanner was cited for lacking the permit, convicted in 1993 by the 20th District Court, and the Wayne County Circuit Court affirmed the conviction for enforcement of a $100 fine.
- In 2005–2006, Hanner received and appeared on arrest warrants for the unpaid fine, was briefly detained, and later shown cause for the stay, including a day in custody and a contempt finding.
- Hanner later sought to add defendants and amend his complaint; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and the court of appeals affirmed, holding immunity, lack of municipal policy, and lack of personal involvement.
- The court also upheld dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim related to the crutch as de minimis and affirmed denial of the proposed amendment as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims | Hanner argues stripping doctrine allows individual claims | District court applied favorable termination rule | Yes, Heck bar affirmed; waiver applies to the challenged claims. |
| Whether judicial immunity and other immunities bar claims against courts and officials | Hanner alleges personal involvement of officials | Immunity shields judges and certain officials | Yes; claims against courts and officials dismissed due to immunity. |
| Whether Monell liability or official policy is shown against the City | City had a policy or custom | No policy or custom pleaded | Yes; dismissal affirmed for failure to plead municipal policy. |
| Whether the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment crutch denial states a constitutional claim | Crutch denial constitutes cruel punishment | De minimis and no serious medical need shown | No constitutional violation; claim affirmed as dismissed. |
| Whether the district court abused in denying amendment to add defendants | Amendment would cure defects | Proposed amendments futile | No abuse; denial affirmed as futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (favorable termination rule bars certain §1983 claims when they implicitly challenge a conviction)
- Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 1994) (judicial immunity extends to acts intrinsically connected to judicial proceedings)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (absolute judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity)