Wesley v. Rigney, 913 F. Supp. 2d 313

Wesley, a school counselor, faced seven-year-old J.S.'s allegations of sexual abuse; Rigney, Covington Police detective, sought probable-cause warrant based on her affidavit; a district judge issued the arrest warrant but a grand jury later declined to indict.
Wesley filed a §1983 action against Rigney alleging retaliatory and wrongful arrest under First and Fourth Amendments, plus state-law claims for outrage and negligent investigation.
Campbell, a social services worker, substantiated abuse findings against Wesley and personally selected Rigney for the case; J.S. disclosed alleged abuse during a forensic interview at CAC.
Rigney’s investigation allegedly was limited; she did interview some students but did not interview Wesley, and she allegedly omitted exculpatory information from the affidavit.
Arrest followed the affidavit; Wesley was arrested and released on bond; later, the grand jury returned No True Bill; Wesley amended the complaint and discovery occurred; the court then ruled on several motions to dismiss.
The court’s decision addresses whether official-capacity §1983 claims against Rigney are viable, whether qualified immunity applies to the arrest claim, and whether state-law claims survive or are barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether official-capacity §1983 claims against Rigney survive	Wesley argues Covington should be liable for violations	Rigney argues no Monell-style policy shown	Official-capacity claims dismissed against Covington
Whether Rigney is entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest	Wesley contends omission and investigation show lack of probable cause	Rigney claims probable cause based on J.S.'s statements; no recklessness	Qualified immunity affirmed; arrest lawful or reasonable under the circumstances
Whether Vakilian recklessness standard is satisfied for omissions	Wesley alleges deliberate omissions show reckless disregard	Omissions not reckless or material	No substantial showing of reckless disregard; qualified immunity applies
Whether the omissions were objectively reasonable given clearly established law	Wesley contends law requires more thorough investigation	Investigation reasonable; no duty to interview others once probable cause exists	Actions were objectively reasonable; qualified immunity sustained
Whether Wesley pleads a viable retaliatory arrest claim	Wesley asserts arrest in retaliation for appealing substantiated finding	Reichle limits without probable cause, but not applicable to retaliation claim at this stage	Retaliatory-arrest claim survives at prima facie stage; dismissal denied

Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (proof required for deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard; material to probable cause)
Ahlers v. Schebil, 188 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1999) (probable cause does not require continuing investigation; no duty to exculpate; credibility of witness not guaranteed)
BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123 (7th Cir. 1986) (limited duty to investigate; cannot arrest without sufficient elements; but may not require exhaustive inquiry)
Ollis v. Wood, 810 F.2d 202 (6th Cir. 1986) (distinguishable; concern over corroboration when relying on child testimony; failure to corroborate may require more investigation)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause standard is flexible and contextual)