407 F. App'x 885
6th Cir.2011Background
- Everson reported Graham’s alleged sexual assault; Detective Picketts investigated, interviewing Everson, witnesses, and Graham, with inconsistent statements later alleged.
- Branch County prosecutor declined to prosecute Graham after reviewing Picketts’s report; later Kalamazoo County procured dismissed all charges against Everson.
- Everson publicly criticized Picketts for not pursuing the case and pursued formal complaints and correspondence in 2006.
- Picketts began a new investigation into Everson, interviewing Mrs. Fitzpatrick who alleged Everson had recanted the assault; eight days later an arrest warrant for Everson was sought.
- Everson was charged with filing a false police report; preliminary hearing found probable cause, but the circuit court dismissed, and charges were later dropped in Kalamazoo County.
- District court denied most of Everson’s claims and dismissed/denied some claims; Picketts appealed seeking dismissal on qualified-immunity grounds; issue primarily whether probable cause defeats a retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does probable cause bar a retaliation claim? | Everson argues lack of trustworthy probable cause due to manipulated statements. | Picketts contends probable cause supports arrest; privilege to rely on investigations. | Probable cause disputed; case to trial |
| Does Picketts have qualified immunity on Everson’s retaliation claim? | Exposed constitutional right to speak without retaliation; clearly established law violated. | Picketts argues objective reasonableness; no clearly established violation at the time. | District court's denial affirmed; no qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (First Amendment retaliation includes criminal prosecutions; requires showing of retaliatory motive)
- Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment)
- Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (two-step qualified immunity analysis requiring clear establishment)
- Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (disputed facts need resolution; interlocutory review limitations)
- Parsons v. City of Pontiac, 533 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2008) (probable cause evaluated from perspective of arresting officer; jury question if disputed)