818 F.2d 513 (6th Cir. 1987), 86-3063, Dugan v. Brooks
|Citation:||818 F.2d 513|
|Party Name:||John W. DUGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. BROOKS, Individually and in his official capacity as a Cleveland State University law enforcement officer, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Case Date:||May 06, 1987|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
Argued Jan. 30, 1987.
James R. Dugan (argued), Wickliffe, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel O'Loughlin (argued), Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Before RYAN and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.
BAILEY BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal raises the question whether plaintiff-appellant, Dugan, stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against defendant-appellee, Brooks, a Cleveland State University (Cleveland State) police officer. The district court held that he did not and therefore granted Brooks' motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We conclude that Dugan's complaint did state
a claim for relief and consequently we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
The complaint alleges that on the evening of October 23, 1981, Dugan attended a musical performance at a bar colorfully named Fat Glenn's on the Cleveland State campus. 1 It further alleges that he was an employee of Cleveland State's Department of Student Group Services and in that capacity was assisting fellow employees, all of which was known to Brooks. At around midnight, an altercation occurred between two other men, both of whom were friends of Dugan, and in an effort to restrain one of these persons, Dugan placed his hands on the friend's chest. At that time Brooks, acting in his capacity as an on-duty police officer of Cleveland State, approached Dugan "from behind and without warning and without legal justification, willfully, maliciously and intentionally pulled out his PR-24 Monadnock nightstick and struck [Dugan] ... on the side of the ... head, knocking him to the floor and causing a severe, painful and disabling wound to [Dugan's] head." Complaint at 3.
The complaint further alleges that at the time Dugan was struck, he was not armed and had not resisted and had committed no violation of the law. Brooks then, according to the complaint, falsely arrested Dugan for assaulting a police officer and disorderly conduct, put him in handcuffs and removed him to a hospital and then to the Cleveland State police headquarters, where he was fingerprinted and photographed. Later, it alleges, Dugan was removed, handcuffed, to the City of Cleveland Police Department Headquarters. There, the complaint alleges, Brooks caused Dugan to be charged, falsely, with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct though Brooks knew there was no probable cause for such charges. Dugan was ultimately found not guilty by a jury of all charges.
The complaint alleges that the conduct of Brooks deprived Dugan of rights secured to him by the fourth and fourteenth amendments 2 and that therefore he has a claim against Brooks individually and officially under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. 3 The complaint relies on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 for jurisdiction. 4
There is an element of confusion in this appeal that in part derives from the fact that the defendants filed both a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b). Moreover, there were some...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP