Mango v. City of Columbus
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:19-cv-3120,Case No. 2:19-cv-5282 |
| Parties | COURTNEY MANGO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants. JANINNY DASILVA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
These matters are before the Court on seven motions to dismiss (Mango1 ECF Nos. 69-72; DaSilva ECF Nos. 13-15) and two motions for judgment on the pleadings (Mango ECF Nos. 75, 76) by the defendants in the two above-captioned cases. Plaintiffs have responded to each of the motions filed in their respective cases. (Mango ECF Nos. 77-80, 88; DaSilva ECF No. 29.) Defendants have filed replies. (Mango ECF Nos. 91-94, 105, 109; DaSilva ECF No. 30.) These motions are now ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the City ofColumbus's Motions to Dismiss (Mango ECF No. 69; DaSilva ECF No. 13) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The City employees' Motions to Dismiss (Mango ECF Nos. 70, 71; DaSilva ECF No. 14) are GRANTED. The Franklin County Municipal Court Clerk's Motions to Dismiss (Mango ECF No. 72; DaSilva ECF No. 15) are GRANTED. Finally, specific to the Mango case, the Maugers' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Mango ECF Nos. 75, 76) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
There are three additional items requiring attention in the DaSilva case. First, several Defendants have filed a Motion for Judicial Notice. (DaSilva ECF No. 12.) Ms. DaSilva has not opposed this motion. The motion is GRANTED. Second, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that all claims against Ms. Stewart be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect timely service. (DaSilva ECF No. 28.) Ms. DaSilva has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The Magistrate's report and recommendation is ADOPTED, and all claims against Ms. Stewart are DISMISSED without prejudice. Third, Mr. Hedges has not filed a motion to dismiss. The claims against him will not be addressed in this opinion.
Ohio law permits a private citizen to initiate criminal proceedings using the following procedure:
A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate. A private citizen may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with the clerk of a court of record before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials if the clerk's office is open at those times. A clerk who receives an affidavit before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials shall forward it to a reviewing official when the reviewing official's normal business hours resume.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2935.09(D) (West 2020). These cases involve private citizens' use of this mechanism in what Plaintiffs allege was an unlawful manner.
Plaintiff Courtney Mango was involved in a protracted custody dispute with her ex-husband, Defendant Shane Mauger. ( For some of this time, Shane was incarcerated. (Id. ¶ 40.) Three of Shane's family members also participated in the custody litigation—his new wife, Defendant Maria Mauger; his mother, Defendant Janet Mauger; and his father, Defendant Michael Mauger. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12, 40.) Ms. Mango alleges that, throughout this custody dispute, the Maugers interfered with the process to divest her of her custody rights.
On November 8, 2017, the two children were visiting Michael and Janet when Michael noticed a bruise on the leg of one of the children, W.M. (Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 2-3.) Michael called the Columbus Police Department ("CPD") to report that Ms. Mango had abused W.M. (Mango Am. Compl. ¶ 30.) CPD took no action "[d]ue to conflicting stories" and referred Michael to the Columbus City Attorney's Office. (Mango ECF No. 59-16, at 8.)
Michael and Maria took W.M. to the hospital and refused to return the children to Ms. Mango's custody. (Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 3.) Michael and the hospital contacted Franklin County Children's Services ("FCCS"), which opened an investigation into the matter. (Mango Am. Compl. ¶ 38; Mango ECF No. 59-10 at 5; Mango ECF No. 59-13, at 9; Mango ECF No. 59-16, at 8.)
On November 9, 2017, Michael and at least one of the children went to the City Attorney's Office where they met with Defendant Robert Tobias. (Mun. Ct. Mot. to Dismiss Hr'g Tr. ("Mango Hr'g Tr.") 28:12-20:3, 25:22-26:13, Mango ECF No. 59-9.) Mr. Tobias is a prosecutor who oversees the unit responsible for reviewing citizen complaints in accordance withthe process outlined in Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.09(D) (the "Citizen Complaint Unit"). (Id. 10:15-11:4.) Michael was advised to return Ms. Mango's children to her. (Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 3.) The City Attorney's Office did not immediately pursue charges after this meeting. (Mango Hr'g Tr. 31:9-13.)
That same day, Maria sought and received an ex parte Civil Protection Order ("CPO") ordering that Ms. Mango have no contact with the children. (Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 4; Mango ECF No. 59-13.) The order was to remain in effect until November 27, 2017, when a hearing on the CPO was to be held. (Mango ECF No. 59-13.) After the CPO was issued, a deputy went to Ms. Mango's home, served her with the CPO, and removed the children from the home and placed them in the custody of the Maugers. (Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 4.)
On November 16, 2017, Michael, Janet, and Maria went to the City Attorney's Office to file domestic violence charges against Ms. Mango. (Mango Am. Compl. ¶ 33.) It is not clear whether the City Attorney's Office had learned any additional information since Michael's last visit. (Mango Hr'g Tr. 31:22-32:19.) However, this time, the City Attorney's Office agreed to let Michael file the charges.
Michael signed two criminal Complaints and a probable cause affidavit in which he alleged that Ms. Mango had physically abused W.M on November 1, 2017. (Mango ECF Nos. 59-1, 59-3, 59-5.) The Complaints contain the initials of Mr. Tobias; Defendant Lara Baker-Morrish, the chief prosecutor at the City Attorney's Office; and Defendant Brice Clymer, an intake officer.2 (Mango ECF Nos. 59-2, 59-6; Hr'g Tr. 18:12-20:3, 25:22-26:13.) As the chief prosecutor, Ms. Baker-Morrish's initials went on all citizen Complaints (Mango Hr'g Tr. 19:23-20:1); however, there is no allegation that she was personally involved in the filing of the Complaints against Ms. Mango. Mr. Tobias, on the other hand, was personally involved in the case. He created the probable cause affidavit, and he reviewed the documents before they were filed with the Franklin County Municipal Court Clerk's Office. (Id. 33:12-14, 35:2-5.) Mr. Clymer wrote his own initials, Mr. Tobias's initials, and Ms. Baker-Morrish's initials on the documents and accompanied Michael to the Clerk's Office where Michael submitted the Complaints. (Id. 37:2-5, 38:17-22; Mango ECF Nos. 59-1, 59-5.)
The deputy clerk found that the Complaints established probable cause that Ms. Mango had committed two misdemeanors (domestic violence and assault) and issued a summons for her appearance. (Mango ECF Nos. 59-1, 59-2, 59-3, 59-5, 59-6, 59-12.) The case was prosecuted by the City Attorney's Office, specifically by Defendants Allison Lippman and Stephen Steinberg. (Mango Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.)
On December 18, 2017, Ms. Mango appeared in court in response to the summons and entered a plea of not guilty. (Mango ECF No. 59-7.) After Ms. Mango was arraigned, the City Attorney's Office requested a "stay away" order and asked that she be ordered to comply with the CPO. (Mango ECF No. 59-15.) When Ms. Mango was arraigned, the presiding judge took note of the CPO and the pending FCCS investigation and restricted Ms. Mango's visitation with the children, ordering that she abide by the findings and recommendations of FCCS. (Id.; Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 5.) At some point, FCCS determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated and closed its investigation. (Mango ECF No. 59-10, at 5.)
On January 17, 2018, the CPO matter was scheduled for trial. (Id. at 4.) Maria sought to delay the trial for a third time, but when her request was denied, she voluntarily dismissed the action. (Id.) After the CPO matter was dismissed, Ms. Mango's children were returned to her forthe first time since November 9. (Id. at 4-5.) The only time she had seen them in the interim was for two hours on Thanksgiving. (Id. at 4.)
In March 2018, Ms. Mango moved to dismiss her criminal case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the initiating Complaints had not been filed in compliance with Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.09(D). (Mango ECF No. 59-10.) On July 19, 2018, a Franklin County Municipal Court judge granted the motion and dismissed the charges. (Mango ECF No. 59-4.)
As a result of these proceedings, Ms. Mango was placed on paid leave from her job as a schoolteacher for ten months. (Mango Am. Compl. ¶ 101.) She was also twice subpoenaed to produce her children at a hearing. (Id. ¶ 104.)
Plaintiff Janniny DaSilva is the mother of two children. (DaSilva ECF No. 8-1, at 25-26.) In February 2015, Ms. DaSilva and her ex-husband, Defendant Corey Hedges, jointly agreed that Ms. DaSilva would be awarded sole custody over their son, K.H. (Id. at 11.) The father of Ms. DaSilva's second son is Jacob Shinnick. (Id. at 25-26.)
On April 5, 2017, Mr. Shinnick's mother called CPD to report that Ms. DaSilva had committed an act of violence against K.H. ( Ms. DaSilva told the CPD officers that she had been attempting to spank K.H. on his buttocks with...
To continue reading
Request your trial