Marvaso v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 21 August 2020
• Docket Number: Nos. 19-1857/1870/1882,s. 19-1857/1870/1882
• Citation: 971 F.3d 599
• Parties: George MARVASO; Mary Marvaso; George F. Marvaso, Sunday Gains, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. George Marvaso; Mary Marvaso; George F. Marvaso, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John Adams and Michael J. Reddy, Jr.; Michael J. Reddy, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

971 F.3d 599

George MARVASO; Mary Marvaso; George F. Marvaso, Sunday Gains, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.Richard SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

George Marvaso; Mary Marvaso; George F. Marvaso, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.John Adams and Michael J. Reddy, Jr.; Michael J. Reddy, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 19-1857/1870/1882

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: April 30, 2020

Decided and Filed: August 21, 2020

Rehearing En Banc Denied September 30, 2020

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises from a criminal investigation of Plaintiffs for a fire that occurred at their restaurant in Westland, Michigan. In Case No. 19-1882, Defendants John Adams and Michael Reddy Jr. appeal the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim on qualified immunity grounds. In Case No. 19-1870, Defendant Michael Reddy Sr. appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. And in Case No. 19-1857, Defendant Richard Sanchez appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim on qualified immunity grounds. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Reddy Sr.’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court's order with respect to the other Defendants.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs’ Civil Conspiracy Allegations

In August 2018, Plaintiffs sued Defendants John Adams, Michael Reddy Jr., and Michael Reddy Sr. under § 1983, claiming that those three individuals engaged in an unlawful civil conspiracy to falsify evidence and thereby wrongfully cause Plaintiffs to be criminally investigated for homicide by arson. See Marvaso v. Adams , No. 4:18-cv-12442, 2019 WL 3003641 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2019). Their first amended complaint alleged the following facts:

Plaintiffs lease and operate a restaurant called Marvaso's Italian Grille. The restaurant is adjoined by a charity pool hall and poker facility, Electric Stick, which Plaintiffs also lease and operate. On the morning of May 8, 2013, a fire broke out in the kitchen of Marvaso's and spread to Electric Stick. Within ten minutes of receiving the emergency calls, the City of Wayne-Westland Fire Department responded. The firefighters eventually succeeded in putting out the fire, but in the process a probationary firefighter, Brian Woelke, died from smoke and soot inhalation.

The Michigan State Police Department initially offered to investigate the cause and origin of the fire, but Defendant John Adams (the Wayne-Westland Fire Marshal) and Defendant Michael Reddy Jr. (the Wayne-Westland Fire Chief) declined. They chose instead to have the Fire Department conduct the investigation itself. Within two days, Adams completed his on-scene investigation. He found no evidence of accelerants. Two other investigators, one representing Plaintiffs’ landlord and the other representing Plaintiffs’ insurer, also investigated the cause of the fire. They each found the cause of the fire to be "undetermined."

From May 8, 2013 until June 30, 2013, the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) investigated Brian Woelke's death. It concluded that his death resulted, at least in part, from the Fire Department's multiple violations of health and safety regulations. For example, it found that the Department did not establish and implement written procedures for emergency operations, including a "two-in/two-out" rule, and failed to follow procedures for issuing a mayday call as soon as the firefighters exited the building with one firefighter missing. As a result, MIOSHA cited the Fire Department and assessed it a $3,500 fine. In a September 2013 letter, the Fire Department admitted its violations and agreed to pay the fine.

Meanwhile, according to Plaintiffs, Fire Marshal Adams, Fire Chief Reddy Jr., and his father, retired Fire Chief Michael Reddy Sr., were planning a scheme to try to divert attention away from the Fire Department for its involvement in Woelke's death. At some point during the period between June 27, 2013 and early September 2013, those three individuals met and had a least one conversation during which they agreed to change the cause of the fire from accidental or undetermined to "incendiary." They knew that doing so would likely trigger an arson and homicide investigation into Plaintiffs’ role in the fire. Prior to this conversation, Reddy Sr. had taken the Marvasos’ daughter, Sunday Gaines, to lunch and told her, "You know I would do anything to protect my family." (No. 4:18-cv-12442, R. 22, Pg. ID 109.) In or about mid-September 2013, Fire Marshal Adams had lunch with a Westland City Council member. Despite having previously told the council member that the cause of the fire was electrical, Adams said he was changing his conclusion to incendiary. When the council member asked why Adams was changing his report, Adams responded, "Because a firefighter died, Bill." (Id. at Pg. ID 111.)

In November 2013, "despite having received no new evidence," Adams "suddenly reversed course, concluding that the fire had an incendiary cause." (Id. at Pg. ID 112.) Adams then, in furtherance of the conspiracy, knowingly submitted the false fire report to the Michigan State Police. Doing so triggered an unjustified homicide investigation into Plaintiffs, which resulted in the search and seizure of their property, loss of employment, and "inability to rebuild their family business" because of the loss of insurance proceeds. (Id. at Pg. ID 115–16.) Plaintiffs were never arrested for any involvement in the fire and no charges against them were ever brought. According to Plaintiffs, Adams’ intentionally false report was the only evidence of any possible wrongdoing by Plaintiffs. They allege that their damages, including the searches of their homes and seizure of their property, occurred as a direct result of this false report.

B. Plaintiffs’ Search and Seizure Allegations

In a separate lawsuit, Plaintiffs sued Defendant Lieutenant Richard Sanchez, alleging that he falsified information in his application for a warrant to search Plaintiffs’ homes and illegally searched their homes without probable cause to do so, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Marvaso v. Sanchez , No. 4:18-cv-12193, 2019 WL 3003681 (E.D. Mich. July 10, 2019).

The first half of Plaintiffs’ complaint against Sanchez essentially mirrors their complaint against Reddy Sr., Reddy Jr. and Adams. They alleged the circumstances surrounding the fire and Brian Woelke's death described above. They said that within two days of the fire, Adams concluded that the fire was not caused by accelerants. They also alleged that two other investigators found the cause of the fire to be "undetermined." Although they did not include their allegations regarding the conspiratorial conversation between Adams, Reddy Jr., and Reddy Sr., they did allege that sometime in November 2013, despite receiving no new evidence, Adams changed his conclusion regarding the cause of the fire to "incendiary."

In four paragraphs, Plaintiffs then asserted their allegations against Lieutenant Sanchez:

41. On or about December 12, 2013, Defendant, Sanchez, swore out an affidavit in support of a search warrant to seize numerous items from the homes of George and Mary Marvaso, Geo Marvaso, and Sunday Gains.

42. The affidavit to support the search warrant lacked the necessary specificity to warrant a person of reasonable caution to conclude that evidence of criminal conduct would be in the stated place to be searched.

43. The facts to support the search warrant were knowingly false or were made with reckless disregard for the truth and did not provide probable cause for the search warrant and the invasion of Plaintiffs’ homes.

44. But for Sanchez[’s] intentionally and/or recklessly-made false statements, there would have been no probable cause to secure a search warrant, because there would have been no evidence of a crime.

(No. 4:18-cv-12193, R. 1, Pg. ID 10 (emphasis removed).) Plaintiffs did not specify which statements in Sanchez's affidavit were supposedly false.

C. Procedural History

Defendants Adams and Reddy Jr. moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). They argued that Plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient to support a § 1983 civil conspiracy claim and in any event, they were entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Defendant Reddy Sr. also moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), claiming that he did not act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 liability because he had retired as the Wayne-Westland fire chief in 1998 and was not a public official at the time of the alleged conspiracy.

The district court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss. It found that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged each element of their civil conspiracy claim, and held that Reddy Sr., a private citizen, could be held liable under § 1983 because he willfully participated in a conspiracy with state actors. See, e.g. , Cooper v. Parrish , 203 F.3d 937, 952 n.2 (6th Cir. 2000) ("If a private party has conspired with state officials to violate constitutional rights, then that party qualifies as a state actor and may be held liable pursuant to § 1983."). Defendants now seek to appeal that decision.

Defendant Lieutenant Sanchez also sought to dismiss Plaintiffs’ illegal search and seizure claim against him. He moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or in the alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Sanchez argued a single ground for dismissal: that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he relied "in objective good faith" on a judicially approved warrant in conducting the searches. See Sanchez , 2019 WL 3003681, at *4 ("Lieutenant Sanchez makes one argument in support of his motion to dismiss. Specifically, he claims that because a judicial officer...