Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Seiter

Decision Date24 January 1986
Docket NumberAFL-CI,L
Citation785 F.2d 309
PartiesUnpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,ocal 11; Samuel E. Marcum; Cris Beesler; Douglas A. Gerhart; Robert Tanner; Michael A. Hill; Randy M. Martin; Edward L. Brooks; Phillip Ree; Jeffrey Craft, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard P. Seiter, Individually and as Director Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation; Ronald C. Marshall, Individually and as Superintendent of S.O.C.F.; Billy G. Seth, Individually and as Deputy Supt. for Custody of S.O.C.F.; H. K. Russell, Individually and as Supt. of Lima Correctional Facility; Terry Morris, Individually and as Supt. of Southeastern Ohio Training Center; Dorothy Arn, Individually and as Supt. of Ohio Reformatory for Women; E. P. Perini, Individually and as Supt. of Marion Correctional Facility; Arthur Tate, Jr., Individually and as Supt. of Chillicothe Corr. Facility; Harry Russell, Individually and as Supt. of Hocking Correctional Facility; Arnold R. Jago, Individually and as Supt. Lebanon Correctional Institute; T. D. Taylor, Individually and as Supt. of Columbus Correctional Institute; Eric Dahlberg, Individually and as Supt. Ohio State Reformatory, Defendants-Appellants, Communications Workers of America, Proposed Intervenor. 85-3836
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Before: ENGEL, CONTIE, and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the Court upon plaintiffs-appellees' motion to dismiss and defendants-appellants' memorandum in opposition, based upon Mitchell v. Forsyth, 105 S. Ct. 2806, 2817 (1985).

Plaintiffs, nine present and former employees of the Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation and their labor union, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, plus money damages from state officials, in their official and individual capacities, for authorizing warrantless strip and body cavity searches of prison employees, allegedly in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The district court, in an order of October 1, 1985, denied efendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was based in part on qualified immunity, finding that their use of consent forms was evidence that officials should have 'hesitate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Pierce v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • August 28, 2003
    ...court failed to make explicit findings in rejecting qualified immunity. Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Seiter, No. 85-3836, 1986 WL 16458, at *1, 785 F.2d 309 (6th Cir. Jan 24, 1986) (unpublished table decision). On remand, the district court again rejected the Department's qualified......
  • Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Seiter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 4, 1988

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT