728 Fed.Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2018), 15-6384, Sanders v. Jones
|Citation:||728 Fed.Appx. 563|
|Opinion Judge:||SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||Amy SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamar JONES, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Leanne A. Thorne, Thorne & Thorne, Lexington, TN, Paul Whitfield Hughes, Michael B. Kimberly, Mayer Brown, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee Amanda Shanan Jordan, Michael Collins Polovich, Office of the Attorney General of Tennessee, Nashville, TN, for Defendant-Appellant Steven Edwards Art,...|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, ROGERS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 04, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 6th Cir. Rule 32.1.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Leanne A. Thorne, Thorne & Thorne, Lexington, TN, Paul Whitfield Hughes, Michael B. Kimberly, Mayer Brown, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Amanda Shanan Jordan, Michael Collins Polovich, Office of the Attorney General of Tennessee, Nashville, TN, for Defendant-Appellant
Steven Edwards Art, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Amici Curiae The Innocence Network, David Ayers, Clarence Elkins
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, ROGERS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge.
The Supreme Court has vacated our judgment in this case and remanded for further consideration in light of Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 911, 197 L.Ed.2d 312 (2017). For the following reasons, we conclude that we lack interlocutory jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings.
In our prior decision we made two rulings. First, we held that, to the extent that Plaintiff Amy Sanderss malicious prosecution claim was based on Defendant Lamar Joness allegedly false grand jury testimony, Jones was entitled to absolute immunity under Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 369, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012). Second, we held that, to the extent Sanderss malicious prosecution claim was based on Joness allegedly false police report, it failed because she could not rebut the grand jury indictments presumption of probable cause without using Joness grand jury testimony, which carries an
evidentiary privilege per Rehberg . See id. (grand jury immunity may extend to use of "evidence of the witness testimony to support any other § 1983 claim concerning the initiation or maintenance of a prosecution"); see also Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647, 660 (6th Cir. 2015) ("As a general rule, the finding of an indictment, fair upon its face, by a properly constituted grand jury, conclusively determines the existence of probable cause. ") (quoting Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709, 716 (6th Cir. 2006)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP