109 F.4th 864
6th Cir.2024Background
- Marc Susselman received a traffic ticket after driving around a police cruiser at a traffic accident scene in Michigan; the initial ticket was dropped, but a second citation was issued for disobeying a police officer.
- The state court ultimately dismissed the second traffic ticket.
- Susselman filed a federal lawsuit under § 1983 and Michigan state law, alleging constitutional and tort violations against the county, sheriff’s office, deputy King, and Superior Township.
- The federal district court dismissed all claims against all defendants; Susselman appealed.
- On appeal, certain claims and parties were deemed forfeited or conceded, notably state-law claims against Superior Township and claims against the sheriff’s office.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process – Malicious Prosecution | King maliciously prosecuted Susselman by issuing a baseless second ticket, violating due process. | No constitutional violation; conduct not shocking to the conscience. | No plausible constitutional violation; claim dismissed. |
| First Amendment Retaliation | Second ticket was retaliation for Susselman’s protected speech and petition. | No causal link; decision to cite predated protected conduct. | No plausible causation; retaliation claim dismissed. |
| Civil Conspiracy under § 1983 | King and Williams conspired to deprive Susselman of his rights. | No underlying constitutional violation to support a conspiracy claim. | No conspiracy; absence of a constitutional violation. |
| State-law Malicious Prosecution & IIED | Prosecution was malicious/intentional infliction of distress. | No malice or extreme/outrageous conduct; proper procedure followed. | No evidence of malice or outrageousness; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy/custom as moving force behind constitutional violation)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (malicious prosecution claim for unreasonable seizure must proceed under Fourth—not Fourteenth—Amendment)
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (sets forth elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (municipal policy defined by final policy-maker's decisions)