Click Back Button to Return to Publication
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL NORMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BEDFORDHEIGHTS, OHIO;
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-3870
61 Fed. Appx. 129
March 10, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH
CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE
28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED,
A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE
PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
RYAN, BATCHELDER and LAY *,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Norman appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims
against the City of Bedford Heights, the Bedford Heights Police Department, the
City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Department, [*130] and other county
officials. He claims the police unlawfully arrested and detained him without
probable cause. We affirm the district court.
I.
On March 5,
1993, Demond Hamilton was robbed and murdered in Bedford Heights. Ohio Ameera
Childress informed the authorities that Richard Wainwright committed the murder
while a man named "Michael" drove the getaway car. Further
investigation led police to believe that Michael Norman, a student at Clark
Atlanta University, was the accomplice. The Bedford Police Department spoke
with the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor to determine whether they had sufficient
evidence to arrest Norman. The prosecutor recommended the police proceed with a
grand jury indictment. The grand jury indicted Norman on February 16, 1999. He
was arrested in Atlanta by the Atlanta police on February 17, 1999. Norman was
detained for approximately two months. The charges were then dropped.
Norman
filed this civil suit against the City of Bedford Heights, the Bedford Heights
Police Department, the City of Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Department, and
other county officials. He claimed the officers unlawfully arrested and
detained him in violation of his constitutional rights. He brought this action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed his claims. We affirm.
II.
Norman
claims that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest and detain him.
We disagree. As noted above, the grand jury had indicted Norman. See Higgason
v. Stephens, 288 F.3d 868 at 877 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that a facially valid
indictment from a properly constituted grand jury is conclusive on the question
of probable cause for the arrest). As such, there cannot be a claim that the
officers unlawfully arrested and detained him in violation of his
constitutional rights.
Norman
further argues that qualified immunity does not apply to the officers in this
case. We reject this argument. An
officer may raise the qualified immunity defense if the officer's actions do
not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). The officers in this
case did not violate Norman's rights.
The City of
Bedford Heights is also immune from Norman's claim. A municipality will be
immune unless the plaintiff can show a direct link-between a municipal policy
and the alleged constitutional violation. See Monell v. New York City
Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018
(1978). See also Higgason, 288 F.3d at 877. Norman has not made this showing.
Norman's complaint does not allege the violation of a constitutional right. The complaint itself says that
the officers arrested Norman pursuant to an indictment returned by a Cuyahoga
County grand jury. Under Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 143 L. Ed. 2d 818, 119
S. Ct. 1692 (1999), the inquiry proceeds no farther.
Finally, we reject Norman's jurisdictional argument. He claims
the district court erroneously dismissed the Atlanta Police Department and the
City of Atlanta for lack of personal jurisdiction. Norman has failed to
convince us that jurisdiction over the Atlanta defendants was appropriate.
Ohio's long arm statute requires that the defendant be located in Ohio, that
the actions of the defendant occur in Ohio, or that the plaintiff incur
injuries in Ohio as a result of the defendant's actions. Ohio Revised Code §
2307.382 (2002). None of [*131]these requirements are met. The Atlanta Police
Department acted reasonably and is not subject to jurisdiction in this case.
We thus reject Norman's appeal.
AFFIRMED.
* The
Honorable Donald P. Lay, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.