Michael Bradley v. Jack Reno, Jr.
749 F.3d 553
6th Cir.2014Background
- Trooper Jack Reno found Michael Bradley sleeping in the sleeper of a tractor-trailer stopped on a ramp; Bradley smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, admitted drinking, and failed field sobriety tests.
- Reno arrested Bradley; a breath test showed BAC .111% (above Ohio commercial-driver limit .04%).
- At a pretrial suppression hearing, the state trial court found probable cause for the arrest but the subsequent jury acquitted Bradley of the DUI charge.
- Because Ohio does not permit interlocutory appeals of suppression rulings and the acquittal mooted any appeal, Bradley could not obtain appellate review of the trial-court probable-cause finding.
- Bradley sued Reno under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding the state-court ruling precluded relitigation of probable cause.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that Ohio law likely bars issue preclusion when a defendant cannot appeal a suppression ruling due to acquittal; the court declined to resolve probable cause or qualified immunity on the record before it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state trial court’s unappealable finding of probable cause precludes a § 1983 suit | Bradley: the suppression ruling is not preclusive because acquittal mooted any right to appeal | Reno: the state-court probable-cause finding should have collateral-estoppel effect in federal § 1983 litigation | Held: No—under Ohio law (as the court predicts), no appeal = no issue preclusion when acquittal prevents appellate review |
| Whether Ohio law requires preclusion of unreviewable trial-court rulings | Bradley: Ohio would follow Restatement § 28 and decline preclusion where appellate review was frustrated | Reno: Ohio law should allow preclusion despite lack of appeal | Held: The Sixth Circuit predicts Ohio would adopt the Restatement approach (no-preclusion when appeal unavailable) |
| Whether § 1983 or qualified immunity compels preclusion | Bradley: § 1983 and qualified immunity do not override ordinary preclusion rules | Reno: § 1983/qualified immunity considerations counsel applying preclusion to protect officers | Held: Neither § 1983 nor qualified immunity requires expanding preclusion; qualified immunity remains available on the merits but does not substitute for preclusion here |
| Whether district court should have decided probable cause / qualified immunity on summary-judgment record | Bradley: district court relied on preclusion, so merits not resolved | Reno: defendants had sought summary judgment on preclusion grounds, not merits | Held: Vacated and remanded so district court can address probable cause and qualified immunity in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006) (unappealable orders generally do not bind later litigation)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (§ 1983 does not abrogate common-law preclusion rules)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects reasonable official action from suit)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (state-court findings are relevant but not dispositive to qualified-immunity and probable-cause inquiries)
- Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (no collateral estoppel when acquittal prevented appellate review)
- Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, 434 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2006) (unavailability of appeal defeats collateral estoppel)
- In re Smith, 964 F.2d 636 (7th Cir. 1992) (mooting of an appeal pending by happenstance undercuts preclusion)