S.L. Ex Rel. K.L. v. Pierce Township Board of Trustees
509 F. App'x 536
6th Cir.2013Background
- S.L., a juvenile, sues after arrest for aggravated arson and detention in a juvenile facility.
- Homer, the arresting officer, and DelGrande, detention-center superintendent, move for summary judgment on qualified immunity; district court denial upheld on appeal.
- Homer and S.L. dispute whether S.L. told the officer he left smoldering sticks; S.L. claims he extinguished the fire and was not consulted with Saylor.
- Intake clerk Bartley completed a risk-assessment and recommended detention; a detention hearing followed the next day.
- Judge Wyler withheld release pending psychological evaluation, appointed a guardian ad litem, and ultimately released S.L.; the prosecutor amended the charge to unruliness and then dismissed it.
- S.L. asserts § 1983 wrongful-arrest claim against Homer and negligent-supervision claim against DelGrande; district court denied qualified immunity on both; Homer’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; DelGrande’s appeal is affirmed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel on probable cause | S.L. argues Wyler’s probable-cause finding in detention hearing precludes the claim | Homer contends collateral estoppel binds based on Wyler’s determination | No collateral estoppel; no formal probable-cause determination by Wyler was made |
| Probable cause for arrest | S.L. had no grounds for aggravated arson; statements do not show substantial risk | Homer argues facts supported probable cause | Probable cause not shown; dismissal of appeal for lack of jurisdiction on this issue |
| Immunity under Ohio negligent-supervision claim | DelGrande’s training failure could support wanton/reckless conduct | DelGrande seeks immunity; argues no wanton/reckless conduct | Jury question on whether DelGrande acted with wanton/reckless disregard; immunity not entitling him to dismissal |
| Ohio law immunities and training liability | Negligence can be shown via willful disregard for training requirements | Exemption applies unless exceptions met; require wanton conduct | Individual immunity not established; jury could find wanton conduct; immunity denied for DelGrande |
| Homer’s lack of jurisdiction to appeal | Homer’s appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubenmire v. City of Columbus, 507 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2007) (collateral estoppel when prior decision resolved same issue)
- Logsdon v. Hains, 492 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard for arrest without a warrant)
- Fabrey v. McDonald Vill. Police Dept., 639 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1994) (definition of wanton misconduct; careless disregard)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 889 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio 2008) (recklessness as perverse disregard of known risk)
- State v. Wolf, 891 N.E.2d 358 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (insufficient evidence for aggravated arson)
- Sabo v. City of Mentor, 657 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2011) (review of Ohio immunities in § 1983 context)
- Summe v. Kenton Cnty. Clerk’s Office, 604 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 2010) (Ohio immunity framework applied to public employees)