White v. Dave Dennis Inc., 3:21-cv-00328

Plaintiff Saylor R. White alleges Beavercreek police (Detective Brad Piesecki) pursued false criminal charges after a dispute with Dave Dennis (an auto repair/sales business); he was arrested July 24, 2019, indicted Aug. 2, 2019, and the criminal case was dismissed Dec. 9, 2019.
White sued multiple defendants: Beavercreek Police Department, Detective Piesecki, Greene County Prosecutor's Office, Prosecutor Stephen Haller, Asst. Prosecutor Suzanne Schmidt, Montgomery County Jail, Fairborn Jail, and others, asserting malicious prosecution, defamation, and Eighth Amendment claims.
Multiple defendants moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings; no opposition was filed after an extension to respond.
The Magistrate Judge found municipal departments and jail facilities are not suable entities and that a grand‑jury indictment and the one‑year limitations period bar White’s § 1983 malicious‑prosecution claims.
Recommendation: dismissal with prejudice of the Beavercreek Police Department, Montgomery County Jail, Fairborn Jail, Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, Detective Piesecki, Stephen Haller, and Suzanne Schmidt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether municipal police departments, county jails, and a prosecutor’s office are suable entities	White named those entities as defendants	Departments/offices are not separate legal entities (not sui juris) and cannot be sued	Dismissed: those institutional defendants are not suable entities
Whether a malicious‑prosecution § 1983 claim survives an indictment	White contends charges were false and pursued without probable cause	A facially valid grand‑jury indictment conclusively establishes probable cause	Indictment establishes probable cause; malicious‑prosecution claim fails
Whether White’s § 1983 malicious‑prosecution claims are timely	White filed suit Dec. 9, 2021 (after case dismissal Dec. 9, 2019)	Malicious‑prosecution claims accrue at discharge; one‑year limitations applies	Claims are time‑barred; dismissed with prejudice
Whether individual prosecutors/officers can be sued personally	White sued the prosecutors and Detective Piesecki personally for constitutional violations	Prosecutors/officers may be sued individually, but the defendants argue claims are barred by limitations and offices themselves are not suable	Offices dismissed as non‑suable; personal claims against individuals dismissed with prejudice as time‑barred

Williams v. Dayton Police Dept., 680 F. Supp. 1075 (S.D. Ohio 1987) (municipal police departments are not sui juris)
Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of a § 1983 malicious‑prosecution claim include lack of probable cause)
Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709 (6th Cir. 2006) (a facially valid grand‑jury indictment conclusively establishes probable cause for holding an accused to answer)
Harris v. United States, 422 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2005) (an indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause under Ohio law)
Filer v. Polston, 886 F. Supp. 2d 790 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (one‑year limitations period governs malicious‑prosecution claims)
Phelps v. McClellan, 30 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 1994) (statute‑of‑limitations accrual rules for malicious‑prosecution claims)