RAY A. JOHNSON and TONI M. JOHNSON v. Andrew J. Hayden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0209n.06
Filed: March 28, 2006
Nos. 05-3174 / 05-3210
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RAY A. JOHNSON and TONI M.
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ANDREW J. HAYDEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
RAY A. JOHNSON, SR., and TONI M.
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: NELSON, DAUGHTREY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. These consolidated appeals arise from the same incident, the
execution of a search warrant at the home of the plaintiffs, Ray and Toni Johnson. The
Johnsons filed a civil rights action against FBI special agent Andrew Hayden, alleging that

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 05-3210 / 05-3174
Johnson v. Hayden / Johnson v. United States
- 2 -
Hayden committed a constitutional tort, proscribed by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (“Bivens action”), by
submitting a false affidavit in support of his application for a warrant to search the
Johnsons’ residence. They also filed a second complaint against the United States under
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. (“FTCA action”), alleging tortious
conduct by the federal agents who executed the warrant. After protracted litigation,
including an initial appeal to this court and a remand, see Johnson v. Hayden, 2003 WL
21321087 (6th Cir. June 6, 2003), the district court granted summary judgment to the
defendant in each case. In the Bivens action, the court held that Hayden’s affidavit did not
contain any intentionally false or recklessly false statements but that, even if the statements
in issue were held to be false, after redaction there would still be sufficient information in
the affidavit to establish probable cause. Because the FTCA action depended on a finding
that the search warrant was invalid, the court dismissed it as well.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
the complaints. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendants
have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this
court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its
memorandum of opinion and order, entered on January 19, 2005.

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 05-3210 / 05-3174
Johnson v. Hayden / Johnson v. United States
- 3 -

-- 3 of 3 --