728 Fed.Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2018), 15-6384, Sanders v. Jones

Docket Nº:15-6384
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
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 563

728 Fed.Appx. 563 (6th Cir. 2018)

Amy SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Lamar JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-6384

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

April 4, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 6th Cir. Rule 32.1.

Page 564

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.

OPINION

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 Sanders’s malicious prosecution claim was based on Defendant Lamar Jones’s 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 Sanders’s malicious prosecution claim was based on Jones’s allegedly false police report, it failed because she could not rebut the grand jury indictment’s presumption of probable cause without using Jones’s grand jury testimony, which carries an

Page 565

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP