Parmelee v. Schnader, 2018 Ohio 707

Background

Nancy Parmelee and Amy Sloan lived at defendant Gene Schnader’s residences (main house and guest house) without a written lease and paid no rent; both later were locked out after Schnader changed the locks and placed some belongings in bags on the porch.
Parmelee called police; Officer Steven Kotheimer responded, spoke with Schnader, and told Parmelee and Sloan the dispute was civil and he could not force entry; he advised them to leave and did not physically remove them.
Appellants alleged § 1983 claims against Kotheimer, Goshen Police District (GPD), and Goshen Township for deprivation of property without due process, illegal seizure, and failure to train.
Appellees moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity and related defenses; the magistrate granted the motion and the trial court adopted the decision, adding Civ.R. 54(B) language.
On appeal, the Seventh District affirmed: (1) Kotheimer entitled to qualified immunity because he did not cause or effectuate the lockout; (2) GPD is not sui juris and cannot be sued; (3) Goshen Township not liable under Monell because plaintiffs showed no pattern of prior incidents or deliberate indifference and no causal link between training and the alleged injury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Kotheimer violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by participating in/allowing an eviction and seizure of property	Kotheimer ordered them to leave under threat of arrest and, by being present and preventing access, effectuated an illegal eviction/seizure	Kotheimer merely informed them the dispute was civil, could not force entry, and did not cause the lockout which was performed by Schnader	Court: No constitutional violation by Kotheimer; qualified immunity applies because he played no role in the lockout and did not violate clearly established rights
Whether Gosh en Police District is a proper defendant	Parmelee and Sloan sued the local police department for constitutional violations	GPD is a township police department and not a legal entity capable of being sued	Court: GPD is not sui juris; cannot be sued; summary judgment for GPD proper
Whether Goshen Township can be liable under § 1983 for failure to train	Township’s alleged inadequate training permitted constitutional violations during landlord/tenant disputes	Township argued no prior pattern of similar incidents, no deliberate indifference, and no causal link between training and the injury	Court: No Monell liability — plaintiffs offered no evidence of prior similar incidents or deliberate indifference and the injury was caused by private landlord, not township policy
Whether there is causal connection between municipal policy/training and alleged injury	Plaintiffs contend poorer training caused the officer’s conduct and resulting injury	Defendants show facts indicate the private actor (Schnader) caused the lockout and officer did not cause the deprivation	Court: No causal nexus; summary judgment for township affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Cole v. Am. Indus. & Res. Corp., 128 Ohio App.3d 546 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (standard of review for summary judgment appeals)
State ex rel. Parsons v. Flemming, 68 Ohio St.3d 509 (Ohio 1994) (summary judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (materiality of facts and summary judgment standard)
Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1978) (property deprivation analysis under § 1983)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard)
Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (three-part qualified immunity test)
Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff’s burden against qualified immunity)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires official policy/custom)
Slusher v. Carson, 540 F.3d 449 (6th Cir. 2008) (failure-to-train liability requires deliberate indifference and pattern of prior incidents)