Ruble v. Escola, 5:09CV02173.

Decision Date28 September 2012
Docket NumberNo. 5:09CV02173.,5:09CV02173.
Citation898 F.Supp.2d 956
PartiesMatthew D. RUBLE, Plaintiff, v. Timothy E. ESCOLA et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Allen Schulman, Jr., Law Office of Allen Schulman, Brian L. Zimmerman, Canton, OH, for Plaintiff.

Nick C. Tomino, Tomino & Latchney, Medina, OH, Gregory A. Beck, Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, Jennifer L. Arnold, Robert J. Tscholl, North Canton, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER (Resolving ECF Nos. 37, 38, and 42 )

BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge.

+-----------------------------------+
                ¦I.¦Background                  ¦964¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦A.¦The Burglary                   ¦964 ¦
                +--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦  ¦B.¦The Investigation of Plaintiff ¦965 ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦The Photo Line–Up                   ¦965 ¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Arrest Warrant                  ¦966 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦C.¦The Arrest of Plaintiff        ¦966 ¦
                +--+--+-------------------------------+----¦
                ¦  ¦D.¦Plaintiff's Causes of Action   ¦967 ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
                +----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦II. ¦Legal Standard                                         ¦968   ¦
                +----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦                                                       ¦      ¦
                +----+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦III.¦Discussion: Constitutional Law Violations              ¦968   ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Deprivation of a Constitutional Right: False Arrest and   ¦969    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦False Imprisonment                                        ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Establishing a Claim of False Arrest¦969 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Fourth Amendment Requirements     ¦969 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Role of the Court                 ¦970 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Defendants Could Not Rely Upon Griffin's Statements¦970   ¦
                +----+----+---+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Garletts' Photo Line-up is Improper                ¦972   ¦
                +----+----+---+---------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦The Warrant Was Not Valid                          ¦973   ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦a. ¦England Violated Plaintiff's Constitutional Right ¦973    ¦
                +----+----+---+---+--------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦b. ¦Escola Did Not Violate Plaintiff's Constitutional ¦974    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦   ¦Right                                             ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦5. ¦The Constitutional Right Was Clearly Established¦974   ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Deprivation of a Constitutional Right: Malicious          ¦975    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Prosecution                                               ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦   ¦1.¦Establishing a Claim of Malicious Prosecution¦975   ¦
                +----+---+--+---------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦   ¦2.¦Probable Cause for the Criminal Prosecution  ¦975   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦C.¦Perry Township's Policy or Custom¦976 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦“Official Policy” Requirement       ¦976 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦a.¦Ohio Revised Code                 ¦977 ¦
                +---+---+--+--+----------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦  ¦b.¦Local Practice and Custom         ¦977 ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦The Policy: Inadequate Training     ¦978 ¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦The Policy: Inadequate Supervision  ¦979 ¦
                +---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦4.¦The Policy: Inadequate Hiring       ¦980 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
                +---+------------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦IV.¦Discussion: State Law Violations          ¦981 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦A. ¦State Immunity                              ¦981  ¦
                +---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦B. ¦False Arrest/False Imprisonment             ¦982  ¦
                +---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦C. ¦Malicious Prosecution                       ¦983  ¦
                +---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦D. ¦Abuse of Process                            ¦984  ¦
                +---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦E. ¦Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress¦984  ¦
                +---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦F. ¦Defamation                                  ¦985  ¦
                +---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦G. ¦Civil Conspiracy                            ¦986  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦                            ¦   ¦
                +--+----------------------------+---¦
                ¦V.¦Conclusion                  ¦986¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                

Plaintiff Matthew Ruble (“Ruble” or Plaintiff) filed the present action against Defendants former Chief of Police for the Perry Township Police Department Timothy Escola (Escola), former part-time police officer Janine England (“England”), and the Board of Trustees for Perry Township, Stark County, Ohio (“Perry Township”) (collectively Defendants), claiming ten causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio State law.1ECF No. 16. Defendants removed the case to this Court on September 18, 2009 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. ECF No. 1.

Before the Court are Defendants' motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). ECF Nos. 37, 38, 42.

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies in part Defendant England's motion for qualified immunity and state immunity. The Court grants Defendant Escola's motion for qualified immunity and remaining summary judgment motion and grants Perry Townships' motion for summary judgment.

I. Background
A. The Burglary

The events giving rise to this case began when Defendant England, a newly hired part-time Perry Township police officer, was dispatched to a private home to investigate a reported burglary.2ECF No. 16 at 3. Several days after the investigation, the burglary victim reported that an unauthorized person cashed one of his personal checks. ECF No. 16 at 3. A copy of the personal check and a surveillance photograph revealed that Richard Griffin had fraudulently cashed the victim's check. ECF No. 16 at 3. Escola and England presented a photo line-up to the bank teller, Julia LeFever, who positively identified Griffin. ECF Nos. 16 at 3; 32 at 21; 36 at 19.

After obtaining a positive photograph identification, England located Griffin outside his apartment, advised him of his Miranda rights, and questioned him about the personal check and the burglary. ECF Nos. 16 at 4; 36–5. Griffin claimed that he received the personal check in exchange for the sale of a four-wheeler. ECF Nos. 16 at 4; 36–5. Immediately thereafter, Griffin revised his response by admitting that he was a heroin addict and cashed the check to purchase heroin.3ECF Nos. 16 at 4–5; 36–5. When asked about the burglary, Griffin “adamantly denied any involvement and said [that] he was at work. Again, very quickly [Griffin] recanted his story and told [Officer England that] he drove Matthew Ruble to the home ... and Matthew went into the home while [Griffin] was on the ‘look out.’ ECF Nos. 16 at 5; 36–5. The next day, Griffin completed a written statement and, thereafter, was arrested and booked. ECF Nos. 16 at 5–6; 36–5.

B. The Investigation of Plaintiff

Upon information and belief of his criminal involvement in the burglary, Escola and England began to investigate Plaintiff. Plaintiff's criminal history showed only traffic violations. ECF Nos. 16 at 6; 32 at 30; 36 at 29. The officers spoke with several witnesses regarding Plaintiff's alleged criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Estate v. Fairfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 21 Septiembre 2018
    ... ... existence of a local practice or custom, normally presents an issue of fact for the jury." Ruble v. Escola , 898 F.Supp.2d 956, 977 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Praprotnik , 485 U.S. at 124, 108 ... ...
  • Coley v. Lucas Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 23 Enero 2014
    ... ... Ruble v. Escola, 898 F.Supp.2d 956, 981-982 (N.D.Ohio, 2012) ( citing Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio ... ...
  • M.J. v. Akron City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 28 Abril 2020
    ... ... See Ruble v ... Escola , 898 F. Supp. 2d 956, 976 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (collecting supreme courts cases ... ...
  • Coley v. Lucas Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 17 Enero 2014
    ... ... Ruble v. Escola, 898 F.Supp.2d 956, 981-982 (N.D.Ohio, 2012) ( citing Cook v. Cincinnati, 103 Ohio ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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