Slough v. Telb
| Decision Date | 14 August 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:06 CV 2592. |
| Parties | Ronald P. SLOUGH, Plaintiff, v. Hon James A. TELB, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Bruce C. French, Lima, OH, for Plaintiff.
Andrew K. Ranazzi, John A. Borell, Sr., Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Toledo, OH, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff has filed an opposition (Doc. 49), and Defendants have filed a reply (Doc. 52).
As discussed herein, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff may proceed with Count I against Defendant Telb in his official capacity and against the following Defendants in their individual capacities: Defendants Luna, Rogers, McBroom, Walentowski, and Grzechowiak, for unreasonably seizing Plaintiff's property; and Defendants Luna, Ellis, and Telb for wrongfully interfering with Plaintiff's family relationships. All other claims alleged in Count I are dismissed with prejudice. Counts II-VII are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants Atkinson and Perry and Defendant Board of Lucas County Commissioners are dismissed as parties.
In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court treats as true all of Plaintiff's allegations not inconsistent with the final judicial findings of fact from prior, related litigation. See, Stychno v. Ohio Edison, 806 F.Supp. 663, 666 (N.D.Ohio 1992). This background, therefore, is not a final adjudication of the facts, but a restatement of Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff alleges as follows:
Plaintiff Ron Slough was hired in 1994 as Deputy Sheriff in the Lucas County Sheriff's Office ("LCSO"), Lucas County, Ohio. Plaintiff served in this capacity until his termination in 2004. Defendant Telb is the Sheriff of LCSO. Defendant Board of Commissioners of Lucas County, Ohio is the legislative and executive branch of Lucas County. All other named Defendants are officers and employees of LCSO.
In July, 2004, LCSO was informed of allegations of domestic violence, spousal and child abuse in Plaintiff's home. These allegations of domestic violence were made by Defendant Robert Ellis, a deputy sheriff at LCSO. Defendant Ellis alleged that he had personal knowledge by his witnessing of domestic violence on five separate occasions. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ellis's statements consist of falsehoods, fabrications, and exaggerations.1
On or about July 13, 2004, Defendant Andrea Luna, a sergeant at LCSO, contacted Mrs. Slough and asked to meet with Mrs. Slough in person. They met the next day, July 14, at Mrs. Slough's place of employment, and went to a fast food restaurant where they proceeded to discuss the allegations of domestic violence. Luna stated that she knew Plaintiff was having several sexual affairs, and that Plaintiff had made advances towards her. Luna told Mrs. Slough that an anonymous tipster (later learned to be Defendant Ellis) had alleged incidents of domestic violence. Luna told Mrs. Slough that if Mrs. Slough did not cooperate Plaintiff would lose his job and the Children Services Bureau would get involved, possibly taking Mrs. Slough's children. Mrs. Slough began to "cooperate" and wrote a statement against Plaintiff. At several points Luna would grab Mrs. Slough's statement and demand changes or exaggerations. Mrs. Slough wrote the statement as directed by Luna.
On that same day, July 14, 2004, Plaintiff was ordered to a meeting with Defendant Jon Roger and other non-defendants, all of whom had supervisory authority over Plaintiff. At this meeting, Plaintiff was informed of a complaint lodged alleging domestic violence. Plaintiff voluntarily cooperated with the investigation. Plaintiff was ordered not to have any contact with his family while the investigation was underway, to speak with a counselor at the Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), and to surrender all of his personal weapons. Plaintiff agreed to the first two terms, but not the third. Plaintiff informed those present that his weapons were locked in a vault in Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff agreed to turn over his keys to the vault so that he would not have access to the weapons during the investigation. Plaintiff was clear and explicit in his instruction that none of his personal property was to leave his home.
The following day, July 15, 2004, Luna called Mrs. Slough to inform her that she needed further information from Mrs. Slough. Luna also informed Mrs. Slough that Luna and several other officers were going to remove all weapons from the Slough residence. When Mrs. Slough received the phone call, at approximately 9:00 a.m., the other officers were already at the door. Defendants Roger, McBroom, Luna, Walentowski, and Grzechowiak, without a warrant, entered the Slough residence, removed all of Plaintiff's weapons, and took Mrs. Slough to the family court to get Mrs. Slough to file domestic violence charges and file for a civil protective order. When Mrs. Slough refused to file either action, Luna contacted the Children Services Bureau.
On July 19, 2004, Plaintiff met with Defendant Roger. Plaintiff was reinstated to duty, reissued his duty weapon, and informed that he could return home. Plaintiff was informed that LCSO had determined there were no domestic violence issues they needed to be concerned with, but that they were concerned with the number of weapons that were in the residence. Defendant Roger told Plaintiff they were going to keep the weapons just to make sure that there were no domestic problems (although Defendant Atkinson later informed Mrs. Slough that Defendant Telb had wanted to keep the weapons to see if Plaintiff and Mrs. Slough were going to get divorced). In August 2004, after a two week investigation, Children Services Bureau found no evidence of domestic violence, a finding that was also independently reached by EAP in September 2004.
Plaintiff attempted several times to recover his weapons from Defendants Roger and Telb. Plaintiff made over two dozen calls, sent two letters, and an official request to have his seized property returned. Plaintiff filed for replevin in state court on October 17, 2004. On November 22, 2004, the state court ordered all of Plaintiff's weapons returned, with the exception of two guns and two magazines: a semiautomatic rifle with a 75 round drum magazine, and a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol with a 50 round box magazine. Defendant Roger testified that the items not returned were then being analyzed by ATF as possibly violating federal weapons laws. Plaintiff claims that there is no record that ATF ever had those weapons in their possession.
The next day, November 23, 2004, Plaintiff was indicted with two counts of unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §§ 2923.17(A) and 2923.17(D). The indictment was subsequently dismissed as the chief evidence against Plaintiff were the weapons themselves, gathered in an unwarranted search and seizure.
Also on November 23, 2004, Defendant McBroom filed a memo recommending that Plaintiff be terminated. That same day, Plaintiff received notice that he was to appear in front of Defendant Ken Perry, Chief Deputy Sheriff of LCSO, on November 30. After the meeting with Defendant Perry, Plaintiff was terminated from his employment for violation of LCSO Employee Rules # 1, Law Violations, and # 7, Conduct Unbecoming an Employee. Plaintiff appealed the decision regarding his termination. The State Personnel Review Board, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Court of Appeals of the Ohio Sixth District all concluded that Plaintiff had been rightfully terminated, despite the fact that Plaintiff had never been convicted of a crime. Slough v. Lucas County Sheriff, 174 Ohio App.3d 488, 882 N.E.2d 952 (Ohio App.2008). Specifically, the Common Pleas Court concluded that Id. at 492, 882 N.E.2d 952.
Plaintiff filed this complaint for damages and injunctive relief on October 25, 2006. (Doc. 1). Proceedings in this action were stayed pending the resolution of Plaintiff's state court appeals. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on March 6, 2009. (Doc. 37). Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings on May 20, 2009. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 4, 2009. (Doc. 49). Defendants replied on June 23, 2009. (Doc. 52).
A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(c) may be granted under the same circumstances as a motion for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). United Food & Commer. Workers Local 1099 v. City of Sidney, 364 F.3d 738, 746 (6th Cir.2004).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a lawsuit for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Courts must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Thurman v. Pfizer, Inc., 484 F.3d 855, 859 (6th Cir.2007). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "even though a complaint need not contain `detailed' factual allegations, its `factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.'" Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir.2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albea v. Bunn
...Guerra v. Rodriguez , 2012 WL 208083, at *12, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7838, at *40 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 24, 2012) (quoting Slough v. Telb , 644 F.Supp.2d 978, 990 (N.D. Ohio 2009) ("A warrantless search and seizure does not violate constitutional rights where the individual has voluntarily consente......
-
Coley v. Lucas Cnty.
...presumed to be acting "under color" of state law, even where their actions violate or are unauthorized by state law. Slough v. Telb, 644 F.Supp.2d 978, 987 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (citingMonroe v. Pape, 81 S.Ct. 473, 480 (1961) (overruled on other grounds by, Monell v. Department of Soc. Services o......
-
Coley v. Lucas Cnty.
...555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009))3. The plaintiff has the burden of showing that a rightis clearly established. Slough v. Telb, 644 F.Supp.2d 978, 988 (N.D.Ohio,2009) (citing Barrett v. Steubenville City Schools, 388 F.3d 967, 970 (6th Cir.2004); Toms v. Taft, 338 F.3d 519, 525 (6th Cir. 2......
-
Coley v. Lucas Cnty.
...presumed to be acting "under color" of state law, even where their actions violate or are unauthorized by state law. Slough v. Telb, 644 F.Supp.2d 978, 987 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (citingMonroe v. Pape, 81 S.Ct. 473, 480 (1961) (overruled on other grounds by, Monell v. Department of Soc. Services o......