*3 DUGGAN, Circuit Judges; District Judge.* MERRITT, J., opinion delivered the court, DUGGAN, J., in which D. * Duggan, Michigan, sitting by The Honorable J. designation. Patrick United Judge States District Eastern District jail 582), during search at the after her MOORE, (p. delivered joined. J. arrest. part opinion concurring separate
dissenting part. summary judgment, Plaintiff moved for made cross-motions defendants judgment. judgment Before summary
OPINION entered, plaintiff moved to was dismiss MERRITT, Judge. Circuit number The motion defendants.2 granted and defendants were these case, plain- complicated factually In this prejudice. The district dismissed and had her Mills was arrested tiff Lisa judgment summary court awarded County, Kentucky, in Knox home searched *4 plaintiff moved remaining defendants and marijuana a charge selling to a of incident judgment. to amend the That alter or tеenager. police appar- to The cigarette a plaintiff timely ap- motion denied was and was insufficient ently concluded there Knox pealed. appeal, plaintiff named On case and the prosecute the County party, a Jailer Preston Smith as Af- dropped. was charge her later despite the fact that he was dismissed arrest, searched for plaintiff her ter a prejudice plain- below as result of with County Knox Al- at the Jail. contraband names tiffs motion. Plaintiff also own though the conducted fe- search was appeal as parties several entities her point jailers, alleges that at one male she parties pro- to the were named jailer passed by the a male during search Barbourville, City of ceeding below: the during the and saw her bare breasts Department, the Knox Barbourville Police to 42 brought pursuant She suit search. County the We County, and Knox Jail. officials,1 § against various U.S.C. governmental these presume naming capacities, their and official both individual on parties appeal entities as arises because Barbourville, City with the connected the city county sued and officials Department, Police Knox the Barbourville capacities. in their official Jail, claiming County County and Knox the below, For forth we rights were violated the reasons set that her constitutional (1) summary judgment defendants the her residence reverse police when searched Police Broughton a Michаel and pursuant arrested her defective Officer and Johnny the through faulty Chief Smith of Barbourville obtained affidavit warrant (2) search Department Police because the jailer her bare chest and male saw Jail, City and the many public County of Barbourville originally sued offi- 1. Plaintiff County, in their official Department parties, cials in Knox both Police as Barbourville including capacities, the and offi- individual despite government fact that entities the these chief, her, police who four cer arrested specifically were named defendants scene, were other officers who complaint. Barbourville, mayor six Council mem- bers, Jailer, County the Knox Coun- Knox Brown, Police Officers Robert Barbourville Executive, Judge deрuty jailers ty two at the Lawson, Randy Pat Alfred and Sherman employee County jail, another of the Knox Clark; Mayor Thompson; Jim Barbourville County jail, five Barb- Knox members members; County city the six council Knox Housing Authority and its Ex- ourville Public West; County Judge Gerald Knox Executive named ecutive Director. Of be- Smith, Director Jailer Preston and Executive low, Broughton Michael and all but Officer Grey. Housing Authority Loretta Department County and Jailers Police Knox addition, plaintiff a settlement with reached Ray Campbell, Sonja Angel and Warren Housing Public Au- commissioners Mills-Rogers ap- below. On dismissed thority. County, the peal, named Knox Drive, warrant in this case used does not estab- Minton returned few minutes any lish link between the to be with cigarette (specifically, later onе any activity searched and criminal later, boy five said minutes the other said fifteen). hence agree lacks cause. We According statement, to Cox’s he district court the facts to the “Housing projects went located on a dispute record do not create material Allison North Ave.” knocked He on a door fact giving violation rise constitutional “a woman the name of Lisa who regarding jail. open[ed] has blonde hair the door” and told him to come in. Cox asked if her she
I. “joint” had a yes sell and she said upstairs, went returning a few minutes Pertaining A. Facts to the Search of marijuana later with a cigarette. paid Cox Subsequent Mills’ and Her Home her five cigarette dollars for the and left. Arrest Cox, Statement of Leo dated Mar. § Plaintiffs first 1983 claim pertains J.A. at 280-81.3 allegedly faulty warrants that resulted her the search of home and arrest in Broughton Officer Michael of the Barb- *5 Fourth violation of the Amendment. The defendant, ourville Police Department, a City to this claim relating are prepared the statements Cox and Barbourville, the Barbourville Police Moore, Brown, and Officer Robert who Department, Broughton Officer Michael was dismissed as a defendant and whose Smith, Johnny and Police although Chief dismissal was not appealed, prepared named, only the two officers were both Reynolds’ statement. Officer Broughton their and capacities, individual official statements, claims that after taking the he complaint. and defendant Johnny Police Chief Smith to the housing project Cox, drove and
On March officer at security out pointed plaintiffs Cox residence on High Knox Central School informed the North Allison Broughton Avenue. M. Barbourville Police Department Dep. at They J.Á. at 512. then re- students, Cox, Reyn three of its Leo Mike station, to turned where Officer olds, Moore, Clayton skipped and had Broughton prepared an affidavit for the marijuana. school and smoked The three plaintiffs home and one for an to police students were taken station arrest warrant. He then met with Judge questioned being after their read (no John Knox plaintiff), Mills relation to Arizona, pursuant Miranda v. rights signed who the warrants. 1602, 16 S.Ct. U.S. L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). afternoon, That Broughton Officer separate
According signed statements Chief Smith executed the warrants at they boys, collectively plaintiffs formed the home. Other officers pres- were purchase marijuana ent, intent to cigarette. Broughton but and Smith conducted Cox two told the other that he where They allegedly knew the search. “ransacked” to get home, He took one. five dollars from damaging her personal some Moore, and Reynolds told Moore and property process. They found no wait by College. search, a fence near drugs Union did find but what Reynolds Moore and “drug stated that Cox paraphernalia:” rolling pa- termed walked housing projects to the on pers plastic located baggies. According to at_” 3. Appendix References tо the Joint submitted in this case will be as “J.A. cited statement, bought he Cox claims baggies were in her son’s plaintiff, (she drugs her son’s from a friend named A.G. Mills they were for claims closet cards), plaintiff) while the who (again, basketball no relation to lived baseball and on her dresser He rolling papers housing project plaintiff. were found the same (she they belonged her deceased claims also claimed that false statements about father, to- upon” used to smoke homemade him during who plaintiff “pushed They arrested cigarettes). Broughton. bacco He questioning Officer Id. County Jail. The and took her to the during initial says ques- he was asked separate rise to the allegations giving person tioning if the last name of the he concerning thе conduct § 1983 claim from was “Mills.” He brought drugs will below. jailers be recited last name at said he did know A.G.’s “thought the time but would be harmless 16, 1999, Broughton March Officer On mean, agree. giving I he was me an back in another inter- brought Leo Cox escape route.” went on to state that Cox he Broughton claims reinterviewed view. I day “to know where [Lisa don’t “in I case missed of his own initiative Cox “still [didn’t] lived” and he Mills] 70-73, Broughton Dep. M. something.” know Id. what looked like.” According to Offi- at J.A. at 498-501. J.A. Brown, who Broughton cer and Officer have not clarified the Subsequent events began cry present, Cox was also plaintiffs months after situation. Three them had death threat told he received arrest, an A.G. was arrested for sell- Mills to his statement that Cox believed related drugs ing drugs. police reсovered against plaintiff. Id. J.A. which apartment, from his claims prepared another Broughton Officer then directly on the other side fence *6 that Cox signed saying statement that Cox Reynolds from and Moore waited where marijuana the buying had “lied about from Cox, apartment was with- while her Mills,” any mar- bought that he never boys sight in from where the two ijuana apartment, her or her from went person who could shed waited for Cox. The up” allegations “made ... and that he situation, Leo light much-needed on the signed on March in the statement he had Cox, for this lawsuit and deposed was Cox, 16, Mar. 1. Statement of Leo dated inability plaintiffs has stated her counsel 1999, J.A. at 284. to find him. statement, After recanted his Cox Pertaining B. to the Search of Facts investigation prosecution
course of the and County Jail Plaintiff at Knox against unclear from record plaintiff dispute exists before us. While also that her constitu- Plaintiff claims criminal ease was ever plaintiffs whether when male rights tional were violated jury, grand to the it is clear that presented during deputy jailer saw her bare breasts charges arising criminal out of the sale jail. Plaintiff her brings a search at the marijuana pursued against County, the Knox claim Knox plaintiff. Jail, Johnny County County Knox Jailer 2001, Smith, jail Ray later, May employees Campbell, and plaintiff Two years (no Sonja Mills-Rogers by Angel and an unsworn written statement Warren obtained mother, was plaintiff). relation to Plaintiff booked by witnessed elabo- Cox and County Jail at around 4:00 at the rating on his eаrlier recantation from Cox, 1, 16, Deputy March 1999. Jailers p.m. of Leo March Statement newly 10, 2001, who hired Angel Mills-Rogers, In the was May dated J.A. 288-89. time, training and in Sonja point and signed report regard- he incident Warren, jail 1, long-time ing cook and em- plaintiff dated March and ployee occasionally helped who with plaintiffs other uncle Campbell claims that was tasks, plaintiff took into a shower area jailers one of the who escorted her back to room to search her for contraband. Plain- the clerk’s office after the search. For tiff alleges, though disputed, review, point purposes we will view the facts that there was no door to the room. light For most to plaintiff favorable and review, purposes of we will view the facts present assume that at the light most jail favorable plaintiffs that afternoon and saw bare assume that there was no door to during breasts course the search. shower Although area. dis-
agree as to whether to call search a II. “strip-search,” jailers point one in- to prevail order on a Section 1983 structed to raise her shirt pull claim, a plaintiff must establish the viola- up body her bra and out her from so that tion of person a constitutional right any contraband hidden in her bra would acting under color of law. state Adickes v. fall out. Plaintiff was not forced to re- Co., & S.H. Kress 398 U.S. 90 S.Ct. pants move her or to her take shirt or bra (1970); L.Ed.2d 142 Street v. Cor- completely jailers off. The claim that al- Am., Corp. rections though dо not everyone taken (6th Cir.1996). protect- State officials are manner, custody into it is routine by qualified immunity ed that shields them for an drug charge inmate arrested on a damages from civil long “as as their ac- order to search for contraband. reasonably tions could thought have been alleges
Plaintiff that while she was rights they consistent with the are alleged standing up shirt and bra Creighton, have violated.” Anderson exposed, bare jailer Ray chest male Camp- 635, 638, 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. bell walked the room. She claims that (1987). L.Ed.2d 523 exposed he saw her stopped chest and
“stared” A. continuing before down the hall. Discussion the Barbourville *7 says She that he body did not turn his or Claims say shoulders toward her or anything, and We must determine plaintiffs whether she expression cannot remember the on Fourth rights Amendment were violated face, his she but claims that he did not as a result of the search 801 North move on immediately away or look from Allison Avenue. Plaintiff challenges both and “stared” her. Mills Dep. the underlying validity, as well as the suffi- 70-72, J.A at 555-57. did say She not ciency, allegations of the in the affidavit him, anything jailers to to women underlying the search warrant. She con- her, or searching anyone jail to else at the tends that the affidavit supported was not time, about incident at the but claims by and, further, probable cause that a tears, that she burst into was distraught, reasonable officer in Broughton’s Officer and injury suffered mental from expe- or Chief position Smith’s would have rience. known was probable there not causе for jail being warrant, denies at the at that issuance of the rendering the ap- jail records, time. Some including pay plication and for execution of the warrant records, indicate his shift ended at clearly violation of a right. established However, p.m. day. 3:00 Specifically, plaintiff some asserts there was government unless the invaded be for the warrant because cause probable relationship establishes (1) supporting the warrant search warrant the affidavit deliberately with and criminal false made link between home either (2) truth and disregard” gen- for the is one of the reasons activities. This “reckless because only was insufficient searches are forbidden the affidavit eral to be searched plaсe particularly-described failed connect limited to searches failed activity police warrant, any criminal are The or the allowed. made Leo allegations affidavit, corroborate link must attached establish statement, as the in his which served probable Cox cause that there is believe so warrant, toor for the affidavit and basis of criminal activ- that the instrumentalities Also, reliability as a witness. ensure In the ity present will be found there. below, on though not named case, the warrant does not establish § claim plaintiff makes appeal link. City of Barbourville and against The the search supporting affidavit department.
police Allison Ave issued for North warrant that the affida- The district court found only following contained state nue to issue a war- probable cause provided vit cause support probable ments plaintiffs home rant the search the location: cause, that, probable defen- even absent received information from [A]ffiant were entitled Broughton dants Smith A THAT ...: MALE JUVENILE immunity reason- because qualified HAD THE MALE LISA MILLS SOLD supported the warrants were ably believed A MARIJUANA CIGA- JUVENILE re- reverse and by probable cause. We (5) RETTE FOR FIVE DOLLARS. supporting the the affidavit mand because inde- following conducted the [A]ffiant not plaintiffs home was search warrant THE pendent investigation: ON 1ST and a probable cause reason- supported by A MALE DAY OF MARCH JUVE- Broughton’s and in Officer able officer A WRITTEN NILE GAVE SIGNED have known positions Smith’s should Chief TO OFFICER STATEMENT cause to con- that there was THAT HE STATING BROUGHTON duct sеarch. A MARIJUANA HAD PURCHASED (5) FOR FIVE DOL- CIGARETTE Broughton and Police 1. Officer LISA MILLS. LARS FROM Chief Smith statement at 117-19 unsworn J.A. that “the The Fourth Amendment states (Leo Cox) juvenile referred to male in their right people to be secure it.4 Noth- affidavit was attached ... ... unreasonable *8 houses why North Allison about 801 ing is stated violated, and no ... not be searches shall being searched. issue, upon probable but Warrants shall affirmation, probable cause determine whether cause, To or supported Oath particular place, the place the to be exists describing particularly ” Const, all the cir- “given whether magistrate In asks .... U.S. amend. IV. searched ... in the affidavit set forth privacy the cumstances right order secure that contraband homes, probability is a fair home not there thеir people juvenile’s protect prepared the from the affidavit police who 4. While the officers department poli- identity identity in accordance with were aware of the affidavit they cy.” juvenile,” omitted information "male 576 juana of a crime will be cigarette,
or
found
evidence
lives at 801 North Allison
Gates,
v.
particular place.” Illinois
Avenue,
462
any
nor
"other statement or evi-
2317,
213, 238, 103 S.Ct.
76
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
dence that ties
place
to the
to be
(1983); accord
527
United States v. Mur-
searched.
affidavit
does
indicate
(6th
447, 457
phy,
Cir.2001)(quot-
241 F.3d
Broughton
Officer
or
per-
Chief Smith
Shamaeizadeh,
ing
v.
States
United
80 formed any investigation to determine
(6th Cir.1996)).
1131, 1136
F.3d
“Probable
whether
lived at
North
801
Allison
as a
generally
cause” is
defined
sufficient
Although
Avenue.
the offiсers claim that
quantum evidence to convince a
reason-
in a
took Cox
car and he identified
that a
person
able
crime has been commit- 801 North Allison Avenue as the residence
likely
ted
that fruits of the crime are
purchased
from
he
where
drugs,
there
present.
Dictionary
to be
Black’s Law
1219
is no indication that
knowledge
(7th ed.1999). We must therefore assess
passed
magistrate.
on to the
The officers’
judicial
whether the state
officer had a
independent knowledge, without some ex-
finding
basis for
substantial
the affi-
planation
affidavit,
is insufficient to
support
davit
presented
warrant
magistrate
allow the
probable
to find
cause
probable cause to
established
believe that
that drugs would be
found
801 North
would be found at
place
Allison
Simply
Avenue.
put, the affidavit
Shields,
cited.
United
v.
See
States
978
does
provide
the required nexus be-
(6th Cir.1992).
F.2d
946
evaluating
tween
to be searched and Lisa
magistrate’s
issuing
probable
cause de-
Mills. See
Carpenter,
United States v.
360
termination,
apply
we
“totality
flexible
(6th Cir.2004)(en
F.3d
banc);
594
approach,
the circumstances”
which per-
Helton,
United States
577
2806,
Broughton and
511, 530,
gator armed with Officer
86 L.Ed.2d
105 S.Ct.
U.S.
knowledge
experience
(1985)).
and
Chief Smith’s
411
probable
could
cause
have believed
Amendment
Fourth
Plaintiffs
North Allison Ave-
existed to
801
the deficient affida
violated
right was
presented
nue. Because the officers
abso-
offi
Although
supporting
warrant.
vit
lutely
pre-
no information
the affidavit
rely
judicially-
on
a
are entitled
cers
magistrate indicating
sented to the
immunity in a Section
for
secured warrant
place
to be
was connected
searched
search, if
illegal
claiming
action
1983
Mills,
through
Lisa
either
a sworn state-
probable
in indicia of
lacking
warrant is so
ment that Cox had identified
residence
belief
existence of
cause that official
drug purchase
as
unreasonable, qualified
is
probable cause
independent investigation corrob-
through
Malley
immunity
v.
appropriate.
is
Mills,
it
orating that was
home of
335, 344-45, 106
475 U.S.
S.Ct.
Briggs,
lacking
the affidavit was “so
indicia
(1986); Ruby
271
v.
89 L.Ed.2d
probablе cause that official belief in the
Horner,
01-4003, 2002
No.
WL
probable
existence of
cause is unreason-
26, 2002); Ahlers v.
June
*3
Cir.
able.”
(6th Cir.1999).
Schebil,
365, 373
that a
Malley,
plaintiffs alleged
In
Against
City
of Barb-
Claim
them be arrested
police officer caused
and the Barbourvile Po-
ourville
to a
unconstitutionally by presenting
Department
lice
supporting affidavit
judge
complaint
a
We first note that neither the
probable cause.
to establish
failed
nor the Barbourville Police
Barbourville
Supreme
Malley,
ties the “action that Claims alleged is § 1983 when implements or unconstitutional executes be Warren, Rogers 1. Defendants statement, ordinance, regulation a policy officially adopted promul- decision or Plaintiffs against Section claim 1983 690, body’s officers.” Id. at by the gated of County jailers several the Knox arises governmental entity A will S.Ct. 2018. 98 from the claim that Ray Camp- defendant however, not, vicariously be held liable un- viewing bell’s of her bare breasts amount- random, § 1983 unauthorized der ed to an unreasonable search. district The 691, employees. Id. at of 98 acts S.Ct. granted summary judgment court to de- 2018. ground qualified fendants on the of immu- nity. under theory, To succeed 558, In Wolfish, 520, Bell v. 441 U.S. 99 therefore, was required to show (1979), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d the Su- search resulted from that the unlawful preme Court held that strip routine оr practice of policy City official searching pretrial of detainees was Plaintiff Department. attempts Police per of se violation the Fourth Amendment train” argument “failure to out a make prohibition against unreasonable searches contending that Barbourville articulating balancing seizures. In Department Barbourville Police and the searches, applicable test to such the Court for the responsible allegedly are unconsti stated: because the tutional searches defendants test of reasonableness under the the amount of gath claimed Fourth not capable Amendment is of these support warrants was ered precise applica- definition or mechanical practices. argues of their She typical requires tion. In each case it a balanc- believe this the officers amount of if evi ing of the particular need sufficient, their training dence personal rights invasion of department must be policies defi the search entails. Courts must However, plaintiff acknowledged cient. scope particular consider the of the in- receive their initial the officers train trusion, the manner in which it con- of the best law ducted, at one enforcement ing justification it, for initiating Trans, nation, and the in which it Pretrial occurred. schools 425-26; J.A. at at & that they Conf. Id. at S.Ct. at least some follow-up training receive on Plaintiff had been arrested on a cause, id.; her probable expert, own Dr. drug charge and she concedes was rea Cox, Terry has no concerns with the train sonable to search her for un contraband of the Barbourville ing officers on der the circumstances. Plaintiffs claim cause, 428; id. J.A. at and she has appears to go to the location where she evidence that city department searched, area or with shower room put ever notice that more training door, out a argues pro which she did not
was needed. Id. at J.A. at. 427. others, vide privacy keep par sufficient sum, to the extent may we plain entertain ticularly opposite gender, members tiffs “failure train” claim against the from seeing argues her. Plaintiff that she City Barbourville and its police depart open should searched “in an have been all, ment claim is without Campbell.” merit. area and in front of Mr. *11 Trans, 442; the Fourth Amendment to right L. under be J.A. at Pretrial Conf. 27-28, or at from that 543-44. We free unreasonable searches Dep. at J.A. Mills incompetent of this as to their purposes they plainly review were assume for will door, not have a to conduct a rea- obligation area did that the shower constitutional Plaintiff concedes not plaintiff alleges. search. sonable they no that only that she has evidence by involve searches Bell did not While to conspired Campbell for him have sex, holding opposite of the members opportunity plaintiff during to see reasons, security For instructive here. search, that she also concеdes provide many places that jails do have jobs nothing did to just doing their others, particularly from complete privacy 74-75, L. at Dep. harm Mills J.A. at her. Supreme As the jail employees. from Campbell The fact that have 558-59. out, facility pointed a “detention has Court walking accidently her as he was seen place fraught with serious secu- unique is a violation cannot be a constitutional Bell, 441 at 558. rity dangers.” U.S. any that absence of evidence either the any has evidence that Plaintiff not offered policy normal was unconstitutional search in the private a more location there was in an that it was carried out unconstitu- appropri- a more jail that would have been manner. Because no сonstitutional tional ate to search detainee. occurred, defendants violation Warren jail opposite gen employees As to immunity. Rogers qualified are entitled to detainees, viewing inmates or prison der prison policy recognized we have that claim that remains What mem forcing prisoners be searched intentionally Campbell sought plaintiff out exposed or to be opposite bers of the sex during order to invade her her by officers of the surveillance regular plaintiff If can that demonstrate privacy. example sex naked —for opposite while Campbell planned or intended to see her in a using a toilet while in shower or search, during he would not entitled be ’ a claim on provide the basis of cell—would However, immunity. qualified v. granted. relief Kent which could be Campbell’s that evidence offers insufficient (6th Johnson, 821 F.2d Cir. during the walking the shower area past 1987); Dahlberg, Cornwell an acci anything other than search was Cir.1992). prison involved Kent dental encounter. subjected to routine policies that inmates Campbell Plaintiffs evidence that did viewing by guards oppo searches or during accidently upon her come case, jailers In this the female site sex. intentionally came to search but instead room separate took where (1) a that of: claim look her consists Plaintiff two officers searched her. female jailer likely deputy makes position as proof policy that it was standard offers jail he is in the and where knows who a man for inmates be searched in such time; (2) “stared” any the fact he guards of sex or opposite ner that looking immediately her rather than routinely view them. persons other would (3) Campbell away; allegations Instead, indicates that War inappro- had on other occasions behaved proce routine Rogers ren and followed jail. towards women priately privacy. her dures to secure Camp- is that sug- proof Plaintiffs of intent in the record No evidence exists Plaintiff does not “stared” at her. Rogers either bell gesting that Warren anything allege said knowingly plaintiffs constitutional violated *12 any expres- or made other facial in the dispute or smiled record before tоus create a says that he did not turn Campbell’s sion. She even of material fact as to intent. shoulders toward her face her. His We affirm his therefore the conclusion of the so brief that wom- appearance was the two district court that Campbell is entitled to jailers searching plaintiff did see qualified immunity. en not agree him. that it While we would have against 2. County Claim the Knox for him look appropriate
been more Smith, Jail and Preston Knox away immediately, that fact alone does not County Jailer make the search unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment. the Although these three are named Appeal, in the longer Notice Smith is no plaintiffs Campbell evidence that As suit, having a to this party been dismissed inappro- occasions had other behaved pursuant plaintiffs below own motion. jail, in priately towards women the she County Knox County and the Knox Jail example the she offers when was arrest- and, were not named in complaint, the as occasion, separate alleges ed on a she with the governmental Barbourville defen- Campbell good-look- asked her is a “What dants, presume we simply is you in ing lady doing a like like recasting claim against jailers in the Dep. L. at this?” Mills J.A. at 563. capacities their official as against claims presents testimony Plaintiff also of a governmental entities. jailer, Lucy Biemslager, former deputy on previous who testified that occasions Plaintiffs “failure to train” claim Campbell made com- inapрropriate had jail against county, head “you’re ments to such women inmates as jailer is without merit for the same rea pretty” previously and had entered into sons we found no merit to her similar unjustified cells of women inmates against claim of Barbourville and Biemslager times. PI. acknowl- Brief Department. the Barbourville Police See edged that the behavior she witnessed oc- supra, pp. 17-18. Plaintiffs claim Campbell curred before became upon defendant Smith is responde based a County Jailer, position a he has since held superior theory liability, can which any examples and she could not offer provide § not liability basis for 1983 of his having being ever viewed woman actions supervisory due to the position of searched. Monell, the defendant over the actor. Biemslager’s deposition U.S. S.Ct. 2018. In order to Appendix Joint nor the record far liability pursuant § so as establish we prove defendant, can determine. We have cited plaintiff instead must that the plaintiffs official, to the to it in supervisory reference brief. respon personally deposition shortly Because the was taken alleged sible for the ac unconstitutional Conference, before the Pretrial tions that caused injury. Bellamy See court timely submitted to the below a Bradley, Cir. manner, 1984). is not clear if minimum, and it trial At must judge allowed it into the record. Based on supervisory demonstrate official us, condoned, the state of the record before can- encоuraged, we or ac knowingly not overrule the district court and make an quiesced in the alleged unconstitutional inference that intended to invade Id. misconduct. Plaintiff fails allege plaintiffs privacy Biemslager’s based on any facts that show Smith or encouraged deposition. enough There is not alleged condoned the unconstitutional con Bill IV. of Costs Rogers, Warren defendants duct of authorized, ap or that Smith Campbell, deni- court’s district appeals Plaintiff con knowingly acquiesced proved bill of objection to the defendants’ al of her for the only support duct. Because court did not Although costs. district is the assertion theory “failure to train” specifically, the bill costs address jail failed to cor than attor- and the that “costs other county rule states that the *13 as of course to ney’s shall be allowed alleged inappropriate fees Campbell’s past rect ” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. prevailing party.... the and that prisoners female conduct towards 54(d)(1). of reversal of the light our by to his su “acquiesced the conduct cause to court lack of district for fail. the claim must periors,” warrant, support the defendants “prevailing party” be considered a cannot Prosecution III. Malicious not enti- Rule 54 and are therefore under prevailed costs. The has plaintiff also tled to on appeal, In her brief in part. Ac- part in and the defendants her malicious objects to dismissal of bear its own party each shall cordingly, prosecu malicious claim. The prosecution costs. claim over which is a law tion claim state jurisdiction through had court district highly inappropriate We also note jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. in supplemental
its police department statement court dismissed § The district of supporting 1367.5 the award costs brief of law claims for lack sub to work. There is abso- plaintiffs state that “Mills able why not work. it had dis no reason she should jurisdiction lutely once ject matter poor, it is of her own If in fact Mills is summary her federal claims posed of Department choosing.” Barbourville Police of our one judgment. Given reinstatement has police department Brief at 38. The claims under Section plaintiffs federal of can work way whether knowing of of state we reverse dismissal making such a has no basis for and it and re jurisdiction lack of law for claims attacks on comment. Ad hominem for its determi district court mand judicial proceeding. in a have no supple of whether exercise nation reasons, the state law jurisdiction judgment over foregoing mental For part, in under 28 U.S.C. affirmed appropriate district court is claims Sales, in dis- part remanded § v. B.J.T. Auto reversed 1367. See Cornist Cir.2001). Inc., trict court. supplemental district courts decline Supplemental Jurisdic- §
5. 28 U.S.C. (a) tion, part: jurisdiction a claim under subsection states in relevant over if_ (b) (a) Except provided subsections as in complex (c) (1) expressly provided Fed- a novel or otherwise the claim raises or as statute, law, any action of which the in civil eral of State issue jurisdiction, original courts have substantially predominates district (2) the claim juris- supplemental courts shall have district which the over the claim claims over so that are relat- over all other claims diction jurisdiction, original court has district original within such ed claims the action in (3) has dismissed all court the district part jurisdiction same form original jurisdic- which it has claims over controversy Article III under case tion, or supplemen- Constitution. Such United States circumstances, (4) there are exceptional claims in- jurisdiction shall include tal declining ju- compelling reasons other additional joinder or intervention of volve .... risdiction parties. MOORE, KAREN NELSON Circuit concurring part dissenting
Judge,
part. (“Mills”) I believe Lisa
Because Mills questions material
has established fact respect claim against Ray her
Campbell (“Campbell”) for the invasion of I right bodily privacy, would reverse grant summary judg-
the district court’s and remand this claim for trial. Ac-
ment Mills, Campbell
cording to stood
open doorway “lookfed] at [her]
long [the took].” J.A. Mills). Mills
(Dep. also testified “stopped Campbell stared” her. Campbell
J.A. 556. Whether accidentally,
came across Mills Mills’s tes-
timony watched her for the search,
duration of he stopped and that averting
and stared at her rather than
eyes, my raises in view a factual issue as to
whether his behavior was sort of inva- privacy
sion of bodily would violate
the Fourth Fourteenth Amendment.
I respectfully therefore dissent with re- claim;
spect majori- to this I concur in the
ty’s opinion regarding other claims. America,
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Christopher ROBINSON, Defendant-
Appellant.
No. 02-2232.
United Appeals, States Court
Sixth Circuit.
Argued: June 2004.
Decided and Nov. Filed: