Setterington v. City of Warren, 5:15-cv-13687

Background

Plaintiffs (Heffner, Mazurkiewicz, Greiner, MSTC, Legal Real Estate) challenge two police searches (July 7 and Sept 18, 2015) of commercial premises at 29601 Hoover Road where a medical-marijuana transfer center (MSTC) operated; large quantities of marijuana were seized but no arrests or criminal charges resulted.
WPD officers entered the business, secured the lobby, detained Mazurkiewicz, Felix, and Greiner during searches, and left copies of search warrants after searches were completed. Plaintiffs claim one July search was warrantless and both searches violated constitutional and state-law rights.
Operative claims in the second amended complaint: unlawful imprisonment (substantive due process), procedural due process (seizure/return of property), Fourth Amendment unreasonable search (warrantless search claim), equal protection (Monell against the City), and state-law false imprisonment.
Defendants include individual officers (Johnston, Dailey), the City of Warren, four named city officials (Fouts, Martin, Murphy, Green), and eight unidentified officers. Defendants moved for summary judgment; Warren moved for contempt against plaintiffs for noncompliance with inspections.
Court dismissed Fouts, Martin, Murphy, and Green because the operative complaint did not assert claims against them; dismissed claims against unnamed officers for failure to identify them in closed discovery. Summary judgment granted to Johnston and Dailey (and remaining defendants) on all federal and state claims; Monell claim against Warren dismissed for lack of evidence of an unconstitutional policy; contempt motion denied for lack of clear, specific proof and specific damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims exist against Fouts, Martin, Murphy, Green	Plaintiffs relied on prior complaints and asserted these officials influenced policy/acted against medical marijuana	Defendants: operative (second amended) complaint pleads no claims against these four	Dismissed—no claims pleaded against them; amended complaints supplant prior pleadings
Whether unidentified Officer Does may proceed	Plaintiffs did not identify Does before close of discovery but sought to proceed	Defendants: discovery closed; Doe defendants should be dismissed	Dismissed—claims against unknown officers dismissed for failure to identify during discovery
Whether Dailey and Johnston are liable for unlawful search, seizure, and imprisonment (qualified immunity / summary judgment)	Plaintiffs: July 7 search began before warrant was issued; detentions and seizures violated Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and state false imprisonment law	Defendants: officers secured a public lobby area (diminished privacy), obtained a warrant, and did not commence searching until warrant was issued; qualified immunity applies	Granted summary judgment for defendants—no genuine dispute that officers waited for warrants; lobby was public/commercial area (no reasonable expectation of privacy); other constitutional and state claims abandoned or inadequately raised
Whether City of Warren liable under Monell for policy/custom targeting medical marijuana	Plaintiffs: statements and press releases by city officials (Fouts, Green, Martin, Dailey) show a settled policy to stop transfers/growth of medical marijuana	City: no evidence of an unconstitutional municipal policy; the cited statements/proclamations do not show final policymaker action or a policy causing constitutional violations	Monell claim dismissed—plaintiffs failed to show a municipal policy, final policymaker action, or admissible evidence warranting further discovery
Whether plaintiffs should be held in contempt and sanctioned	Warren: plaintiffs obstructed court-ordered inspections and failed to comply with remedial directives; seeks $4,000 and authority to remove seized marijuana	Plaintiffs: dispute facts about inspections and contend city did not provide required checklist; argue city’s damages not shown	Denied—Warren failed to show clear-and-convincing violation of a definite court order or specific, compensable damages tied to the alleged contempt

Key Cases Cited

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-part analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (discretion in ordering qualified immunity prongs)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (reduced privacy expectations for commercial premises)
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (lesser expectation of privacy in commercial property)
Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in areas of a store open to public)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)