Mike Partin v. Floyd Davis
675 F. App'x 575
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- After a jury awarded Larry Bachar $199,800 against Mike Partin and Mike Partin Trucking, the state court entered judgment; Bachar’s attorney obtained a writ of execution describing "all semi-trailer trucks" used by Partin’s business.
- Sheriff’s Deputy Martin Tyler picked up the writ, confirmed its issuance with the clerk, then went to the Partins’ home; Christa Partin provided locations and keys for trucks at off-site facilities and Deputy Tyler coordinated with local police and a towing company to seize two trucks.
- A Franklin County TRO was obtained the next day halting execution; the state court soon set aside the execution and the Partins retrieved their trucks; later the state court denied Partin’s post-trial motions.
- The Partins sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) against Deputy Tyler, Franklin County, attorney Floyd Don Davis, the towing company Ikard Towing and its owner, and alleged a civil conspiracy; they also pled state-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the § 1983 claims (and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims); the Partins appealed and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process re: execution | Partin: second post-trial motion suspended judgment finality so execution was premature and deprived them without a hearing | Tyler/County: Partins had litigated and received notice/opportunity in state proceedings; sheriff must execute facially valid writs | No due process violation — Partins had adequate process and state remedies cured deprivation |
| Substantive due process (seizure/threats) | Partin: seizure on an allegedly illegal writ and deputy’s threats to arrest/intimidate shock the conscience | Defs: seizure claims fall under Fourth Amendment; plaintiffs forfeited distinct substantive-due-process theory on appeal | Dismissed — substantive-due-process inappropriate where Fourth Amendment governs; forfeited separate claim |
| Fourth Amendment — execution pursuant to allegedly invalid writ | Partin: writ was unlawfully issued while post-trial motion pending, so seizure unreasonable | Tyler: writ was facially valid; sheriff must execute court process and need not independently investigate writ lawfulness | No Fourth Amendment violation — reliance on a facially valid writ rendered the seizure reasonable |
| Fourth Amendment — out-of-county seizure | Partin: Tennessee law forbids out-of-county execution so seizure unreasonable | Tyler: cooperative enforcement with other counties is lawful and routine; statute does not bar assistance | No Fourth Amendment violation — out-of-county seizure with local cooperation was reasonable |
| State-action for private parties (Davis, Ikard Towing) | Partin: private actors enlisted state machinery or were entwined with county, so are state actors liable under § 1983 | Davis/Ikard: merely invoked or assisted with presumptively valid state procedures or provided towing services; no pervasive entwinement | No state action — invoking state procedures or performing towing logistics does not transform private parties into state actors; conspiracy claim fails absent state-actor conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (procedural-due-process elements and post-deprivation remedies)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process "shocks the conscience" standard)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (prefer explicit constitutional provision over substantive due process)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (scope of substantive due process vs. other amendments)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework)
- Soldal v. Cook County, Ill., 506 U.S. 56 (definition of seizure and possessory interest)
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (when private party action invoking state process may be state action)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (post-deprivation state remedies and § 1983 damages limitions)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (adequacy of state remedies for procedural due process purposes)
- McLaughlin v. Weathers, 170 F.3d 577 (Sixth Circuit on state remedies and due process)
- Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273 (Sixth Circuit on private-party use of state execution procedures and state-action analysis)
- Coonts v. Potts, 316 F.3d 745 (reliance on a facially valid writ can make seizure reasonable)