05a0020n.06

1Th e Ho n. Th om as A . W isem an, J r. , Sen ior U nit ed St at es Dist ric t J ud ge f or t he M idd le
District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
1
NOT RECOM M ENDED FOR FULL-TEX T PUBLICA TION
File Name: 05a002 0n.06
Filed: January 6, 20 05
No. 0 3 -3 7 2 4
UN ITED ST A TES COURT OF A PPEA LS
FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT
KAREN STANLEY, and )
PAUL STANLEY, )
)
Plaint if f s-A pp ellant s, )
)
v . ) ON A PPEA L FRO M THE UNIT ED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CITY OF NORTON, LA NCE KIM M ELL, ) NO RTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
BRIAN PETERM A N, M A TTHEW )
HA RTNETT , D ENNIS CUM M INGS, )
RA LPH DOLENCE, DOLENCE )
ELECTRIC TECHNICA L )
CO NSU LT A NTS, IN C. , A UTO OW NER’ S )
INSURA NCE COM PANY , EFI )
ENGIN EERING A ND FIRE )
IN V EST IGA TIONS, an d KERRY W . )
A UTIO. )
)
Def end ant s-A pp ellees )__________________________________________
BEFORE: BOGGS and DA UGHT REY, Circ uit J ud ges, and W isem an1, D ist ric t J ud ge.
PER CURIAM . Plaint if f s-Ap pellant s bring t his appeal fro m an order of t he Dist rict Court
granting a Mot ion to Dismiss, Rule 12 (b)(6), as to some Defendants, and the grant of a M otion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, Rule 12 (c), as to other Defendants. For the reasons that follow , w e
A FFIRM .
TH E PARTIES AN D T HE CLAIM S
On August 1 4, 20 02 , Karen and Paul Stanley, (“ A ppellants” ), filed a Complaint in the
United States District Court f or the Northern District of Ohio against the City of Norton; Lance

-- 1 of 8 --

2Bivens v. Six Unknow n Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 4 0 3 U. S. 3 8 8
(1 9 7 1 ).
2
Kim m ell, Sp ecial A gen t w it h t he A TF; Brian Pet erm an, Inv est igat or w it h t he St at e Fire M arshal’ s
A rson Bureau; M at t hew Harn et t , In v est igat or w it h t he St at e Fire M arshal’ s A rson Bureau; Den nis
Cummings, Investigator w ith the State Fire Marshal’ s Arson Bureau; Ralph Dolence, employee of
Dolence Electric Technical Consultants, Inc.; Dolence Electric Technical Consultants, Inc.,
(“ Dolenc e Elect ric” ); A ut o Ow ner’ s Insurance Com pany , (“ A OI” ); EFI Engin eering and Fire
Inv est igat ions, (“ EFI” ); and K erry A ut io, f ire in v est igat or f or EFI.
A ppellant s’ Secon d A m ended Com plaint alleged nin e claims f or relief , of w hich f our w ere
federal claims: 1) violation of t heir Fourth A mendment right to be free from illegal search and
seizure; 2) civil rights conspiracy; 3 ) malicious prosecut ion (derived from t he Fourth A mendment’ s
gu arant ee again st illegal searc h an d seizur e); an d 4 ) a Bivens claim 2. T he D ist ric t Cou rt ex erc ised
jurisdiction over the remaining five claims of relief t hrough supplemental jurisdiction.
A OI, Peterman, Harnett, Cummings, EFI, and Aut io filed Rule 12 (c) M otions for Judgment
on t he Pleading s. K im m ell, D olen ce, Do lenc e Elect ric, an d Cit y of No rt on f iled Rule 1 2 (b)(6 )
M otions to Dismiss.
RELEV AN T FACTS
On September 29 , 20 00 , at 2 :5 7 a.m. , A ppellants’ neighbor telephoned the City of Norton
Fire Depart m ent t o rep ort t hat A pp ellant s’ residen ce at 5 2 3 1 Ham et ow n Road , N ort on , O hio w as
on f ire. A t app rox im at ely 4 :0 0 a.m ., Inv est igat or Brian Pet erm an o f t he Oh io St at e Fire M arshal’ s
A rson Bureau received a phone call alerting him of t he fire at A ppellants’ residence and requesting
his off ice’ s assistance in determining the origin of the fire. Upon arrival at t he residence and
cont ain m ent of t he f ire, Pet erm an ent ered t he hom e an d locat ed t he dead bo dy of 1 3 -m ont h-old Bo
St anley , t he in f ant son of A pp ellant s. Pet erm an, ant icip at ing t he n eed f or m ore h elp an d ex pert ise,
no t if ied A TF Spec ial A gen t Lanc e Kim m ell and Den nis Cu m m ing s (w ho w as asked t o b ring K-9 un it s
w it h h im ) and M at t hew Hart net t of t he Oh io St at e Fire M arshal’ s A rson Bureau. A t a lat er dat e,

-- 2 of 8 --

3
Special A gent Kimm ell called Ralph Dolenc e of Dolenc e Elect ric t o aid in t he inv estigat ion. Kerry
A ut io also inv est igat ed t he f ire f or his em ploy er, EFI, an agent of A pp ellan t s’ insurer, A OI.
A ppellants voluntarily submitt ed to interview s w ith City of Norton police off icers at the
scen e w here t hey relay ed sim ilar st ories rec ou nt ing t he f ollo w ing ev ent s: 1 ) A pp ellant s aw ok e t o
the sound of crackling over the baby monitor; 2) Paul Stanley rushed to t he infant’ s room and
attempt ed at least four rescues but w as unable to complete any such att empt due to f lames and
smoke; 3) w hile Paul Stanley w as attempt ing rescue, Karen Stanley att empted to call 91 1 f rom
t heir b edro om , b ut w as un able t o see t he b ut t on s on t he p ho ne d ue t o sm ok e in t he h ou se,
eventually causing her to drop the phone and exit t he house; 4) at some point during his rescue
attempt s, Paul Stanley threw a propane tank, in the open position, through the w indow of his son’ s
bed roo m ; 5 ) Paul St anley m ov ed h is t w o t ruc ks aw ay f rom t he h om e and w ent t o t he n eigh bo rs t o
call 9 1 1 (f irst M r. St anley claim ed h e m ov ed t he t ruc ks p rior t o t elling his n eigh bo rs t o c all 9 1 1 ,
then he changed his story to say that he moved the trucks aft er the call but before the arrival of
the Norton City Fire Departm ent). Af ter these voluntary interview s, Appellants consented to a
search of t he house pursuant to a signed consent form and also signed w ritt en statement s
confirming w hat t hey stated in the interview .
In addition to the information Appellants provided, the follow ing facts are also undisputed.
The neighbors claim they rushed to the Appellants’ hom e aft er calling 91 1 and off ered to go inside
t he h ou se t o lo ok f or t he in f ant son , b ut A pp ellant s t old t hem no t t o g o in . W hen t he N ort on Cit y
Fire Departm ent arrived and asked w here the infant son w as located, t he only answ er Appellants
gav e w as “ in t he h ou se,” on ly lat er t elling t hem w here in t he h ou se. T he f ire orig inat ed in t hree
plac es, an d d isplay ed b urn pat t erns c on sist ent w it h t he u se of a f lam m able liq uid (w hic h w as
cont rary to A ppellants’ claim that t he fire originated below Bo’ s room and spread to the rest of t he
home). The K-9 units on the scene detected the presence of a flammable liquid on some sect ions
of t he home (upon taking samples, the investigators discovered that t urpentine w as present). Paul
St a nley w as w earin g w h it e pan t s t h at h ad no sig ns o f so ot o r b urn m ark s, n or d id Karen St a nley ’ s

-- 3 of 8 --

4
clo t hes (w hic h seem s st rang e in lig ht of t he A pp ellant ’ s claim s t hat t hey at t em pt ed t o resc ue t heir
son ). Cit y of No rt on Fire Depart m ent and Polic e Dep art m ent of f icer s t oo k n ot e t hat Paul St anley
w as calm and Karen S t anley w as cry ing a bit w hen t hey arriv ed o n t he sc ene. A pp ellant s did
ex press so m e co nc ern f or t heir p et s insid e t he h om e. D urin g t heir in v est igat ion of t he resid enc e,
inv est igat ors n ot iced t hat t he b edro om ph on e w as in it s cr adle, no t on t he f loo r as Karen St anley
had claimed.
A pp ellant s allege t hat all inv est igat iv e def end ant s issued repo rt s t hat w ere co m plet ed
w antonly, recklessly, and negligently. Each report c oncluded that t he fire w as the result of arson,
thus making the death of t he infant a homicide. A ppellants allege that M r. Dolence provided the
prosecutor’s off ice w ith information indicating that t he fire w as incendiary in nature. A ppellants
furt her allege that on February 2 , 20 01 , Detective Fields of t he City of Norton Police Departm ent
and un kn ow n inv estigat ors m et w it h Sum m it Coun t y Prosecut ors, f ollow ing w hich A ppellant s w ere
each charged w ith aggravated arson and aggravated murder.
On February 5 , 20 01 , A ppellants w ere taken into custody and confined for a period of 7 8
day s, at w hic h p oin t t hey w ere released o n b ail. On February 1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , an ind ict m ent w as
returned b y t he grand jury c harging A ppellants w ith aggravat ed mu rder w ith aggravat ed arson. On
December 24 , 20 01 , M r. Peterman received a report explaining that naturally occurring turpentine
w ou ld b e f ou nd in w oo d t hat is t he sam e ch em ically as m an-m ade t urp ent ine, and t hat t his w as a
w idely kn ow n f act . In J anu ary 2 0 0 2 , A pp ellant s’ ex pert co nc lud ed t hat t he f ire w as cau sed b y an
electrical malfunction, as evidenced by faulty w iring and oversized fuses. On February 4, 20 02 ,
t he p rosec ut ion dism issed t he in dic t m ent s again st A pp ellant s.
STAND ARD OF REV IEW
Th is co urt rev iew s a dist ric t co urt ’ s gran t of Dism issal f or Failure t o St at e a Claim un der
Rule 1 2 (b)(6 ) and gran t of J ud gm ent on t he Pleading s un der Rule 1 2 (c) d e n ov o. Zigler v. IBP Hog
M ark et , 2 4 9 F.3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 1 -1 2 (6 th Cir. 20 01 ).
A mot ion for judgment on t he pleadings requires the court t o " construe the complaint in the

-- 4 of 8 --

5
ligh t m ost f av orab le t o t he p laint if f , ac cep t all of t he c om plain t ’ s f act ual alleg at ion s as t rue, t hen
det erm ine w het her t he p laint if f un do ub t edly can pro v e no set of f act s in su pp ort of his c laim t hat
w ould entitle him t o relief." id. " The court’ s inquiry is limited to w hether the challenged pleadings
set f orth allegations sufficient to m ake out the elements of a right to relief." Branch Int’ l Servs.,
Inc. v. Budde, 8 9 0 F.Sup p. 6 5 9 , 6 6 1 -6 2 , af f ’ d, 8 9 F.3 d 8 3 2 (6 th Cir. 1 9 9 6 ).
A m ot ion t o dism iss for f ailure to st at e a claim requires t he co urt t o ev aluate w het her a
plaintiff' s complaint sets forth allegations sufficient to m ake out the elements of a cause of action.
W ind sor v . T he T enn essean, 7 1 9 F.2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 8 (6 th Cir. 1 9 8 3 ). T he c om plain t m ust be c on st rued
in their light most favorable to the nonmoving party and its allegations taken as true. See Sc heu er
v . Rho des, 41 6 U.S. 2 32 (197 4). A s a general rule, matt ers outside the pleadings cannot be
co nsidered in det erminin g a m ot ion t o dism iss unless t he m ot ion is co nv erted t o on e fo r sum m ary
judgment. W einer, D.M.P. v. Klais & Co., Inc., 1 0 8 F.3 d 8 6 , 8 8 (6 th Cir. 19 97 ). How ever, the
Six t h Circ uit co nsid ers do cu m ent s at t ach ed t o a m ot ion t o d ism iss as part of t he p leadin gs, if t hey
are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claim. id. at 8 9.
ANA LYSIS
All § 19 83 violations depend on the plaintiff' s ability t o plead and prove that a defendant: 1)
acting under the color of state law 2) deprived a plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitut ion or
law of the United States. Paul v . D av is, 42 4 U.S. 693 , 69 6-97 (19 76 ).
Qu alif ied im m un it y , h ow ev er, p rot ect s go v ernm ent of f icials, sued in t heir p erson al
cap acit ies f or p erf orm ing disc ret ion ary f un ct ion s, f rom lit igat ion and liabilit y . T o d ef eat qu alif ied
immunity , the plaintiff must show : 1) that a constitut ional right w as violated; and 2) that t he right
w as clearly established (w hether a reasonable off icer w ould have had fair w arning that the acts the
defendant performed w ere unlaw ful). Jackson v. Leighton, 1 6 8 F.3 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 9 (6 th Cir. 19 99 ).
W hile q ualif ied im m un it y is an af f irm at iv e def ense t o b e assert ed b y t he d ef end ant , t he u lt im at e
bu rden of pro of is on t he p laint if f t o d em on st rat e t hat t he d ef end ant is no t ent it led t o q ualif ied
immunity. Gardenhire v. Sc hub ert , 2 0 5 F.3 d 3 0 3 , 3 1 0 -1 1 (6 th Cir. 2 0 0 0 ).

-- 5 of 8 --

3None of the Governmental Appellees seized (arrested and confined) the Appellants.
A ppellants’ claim here rests upon the notion that A ppellees violated Appellants’ Fourth A mendment
rights by w antonly, recklessly, and negligently concluding that the fire w as the result of arson (the
only factual allegations used to support t his claim are that A ppellees failed to tell the prosecution
t hat t urpent ine can be n at urally oc cu rring in w ood and t hat A ppellees failed t o c onv ey ex cu lpat ory
evidence about the electrical system in the house). A ppellants do not allege that any of the
Governmental Appellees made or influenced the prosecution' s decision to file charges. The
absen ce o f any allegat ion s t hat A pp ellees cau sed t he illeg al seizure is f at al t o A pp ellant s’ claim .
4There is some Sixt h Circuit precedent holding that w ithholding exculpatory evidence can be
grounds for a new trial. See Sut kiew icz v . M on roe Ct y . Sh erif f , 1 1 0 F.3 d 3 5 2 (6 th Cir. 19 97 ).
Th ere is also p rec eden t t hat , “ an o f f icer can no t rely on a jud icial d et erm inat ion of pro bab le cau se if
that of ficer know ingly m akes false statements and omissions to t he judge such that but for the
falsities the judge w ould not have issued the w arrant.” A hlers v . Sc heb il, 1 8 8 F.3 d 3 6 5 , 3 7 3 (6 th
Cir. 19 96 ). But t hose are very diff erent situations than the court f aces here. Here, Appellants do
no t seek t o su pp ress ev iden ce; rat her A pp ellant s seek t o o v ert urn a gran d ju ry f ind ing of pro bab le
cau se based on an ad m it t edly legal searc h b ecau se t he g rand jury w as no t giv en ev iden ce t hat m ay
or may not have been exculpatory. In addition, A hlers inc lud es a “ bu t f or” elem ent in it s
examination; “ but f or” the falsity or omission, probable cause w ould not be found. A ppellants do
not allege this “ but for” requirement here, nor does this court t hink it is a supportable allegation.
6
Th e co urt app lies a t hree-p art t est in d et erm inin g w het her an of f icial is en t it led t o q ualif ied
immunity . First, plaintiff must plead a violation of a constitut ionally protected right; second,
p lain t if f m u s t p lead t h at t h e rig ht w as so c learly est a blish ed t h at a reaso nab le o f f ic ial w o uld hav e
kn ow n t hat his behavio r violat ed a right ; and t hird, plaint if f m ust allege suf f icient f act s and supp ort
suc h alleg at ion s by suf f icien t ev iden ce t o in dic at e t hat w hat t he o f f icial alleg edly did w as
objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established rights. Higgason v. Stephens, 2 8 8 F. 3 d 8 6 8 ,
8 7 6 (6 th Cir. 20 02 )
A ll Gov ernm ent al A pp ellees
Here, t he A pp ellant s hav e no t spec if ically alleged a vio lat ion of t he c on st it ut ion ally
pro t ect ed rig ht by any of t he A pp ellees. W hile A pp ellant s claim t hat each of t he Go v ernm ent al
A ppellees violated Appellants’ Fourth A mendment right to be free from illegal seizure, they do not
desc ribe an y pro of of t his. 3 In addition, this Court has clearly stated that no claim of m alicious
pro secu t ion can surv iv e in t he p resenc e of pro bab le cau se. T his is t rue reg ardless o f f alse
st at em ent s of go v ernm ent al of f icer s. Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 2 5 5 F.3 d 3 0 1 , 3 1 2 (6t h Cir.
2 0 0 1 ).4 In t his c ase, p rob able c ause h as per se been established by grand jury indict ment of

-- 6 of 8 --

In the unpublished opinion of Bako s v . Cit y of Olm st ed Falls, t his Co urt held t hat regard less
of : 1 ) animu s of t he inv estigat ors t ow ard plaint if f s; 2 ) bad inv estigat ive t echn iques; 3 ) invest igat ors
ignoring relevant f acts; 4) investigators grossly m ishandling physical evidence; 5) intervention by
the M ayor to ensure prosecut ion; and 6) w ithholding exculpatory evidence, the grand jury f inding of
probable cause w as conclusive and granted qualified immunity to t he defendants. 73 Fed. Appx.
1 5 2 , 1 5 7 (6 th Cir. 20 03 ). All of t he above cited fact ors w ere merely deficiencies in the
investigation and not evidence of irregularities in the grand jury proceedings. id.
7
A ppellants. In Higgason, this court stat ed that it is long sett led that t he finding of an indictment ,
fair upon its face, by a properly constituted grand jury, conclusively determines the existence of
pro bab le cau se. 2 8 8 F.3 d at 8 7 7 (cit at ion s om it t ed). Th us, t here w as pro bab le cau se f or arrest
and no action for false arrest or malicious prosecution w ill lie here.
Th e Gov ernm ent al Def end ant s, In div idu ally
St at e Fire M arshals Pet erm an, Hart net t , an d Cu m m ing s, an d Sp ecial A gen t Kim m ell are sued
in their individual capacities. Having determined that t hey are entitled to qualified immunity , the
claim s of un law f ul searc h, un law f ul seizur e, an d m alicio us p rosec ut ion , as w ell as t he Bivens claim
again st Spec ial A gen t Kim m ell, m ust f ail.
Civil Rights Conspiracy
A pp ellant s allege t hat all A pp ellees co nsp ired in v iolat ion of § 1 9 8 3 t o ab ridg e A pp ellant s’
Fourt h A m end m ent Right s. A gain , t his c laim f ails as no ne o f t he Go v ernm ent al Def end ant s v iolat ed
A pp ellant s’ Fourt h A m end m ent righ t s. In add it ion , ev en h ad a Four t h A m end m ent v iolat ion been
properly pled and could possibly be found, A ppellants did not plead w ith the conspiracy w ith the
degree of specificity as required in this Circuit. See Gutierrez v. Lynch, 8 2 6 F.2 d 1 5 3 4 , 1 5 3 8 (6 th
Cir. 19 87 ). Appellants’ conclusory claims in the complaint are not enough to w ithstand a judgment
on t he p leadin gs. See id.
The City of Norton
A ppellants att empt t o hold liable the City of Norton under the theory of respondeat superior
for t he act ions of t he State Fire Marshals Off ice employees. How ever, a municipality cannot be
held liable under respondeat superior. See Board of County Comm’ rs of Bryan County, Okla. v.

-- 7 of 8 --

8
Brow n, 52 0 U.S. 3 97 , 40 3 (19 97 ). To prevail on a claim of city liability under § 19 83 , A ppellants
must establish: 1) deprivation of a Constitut ional right; 2 ) that the city had a policy or custom; and
3) that t he city w as the moving force behind the constitutional violation. M on ell v. Dep ’ t of Soc ial
Sv cs. , 43 6 U.S. 658 , 69 0 n.55 (19 78 ). None of these are pled here.
Th e on ly m un icip al po licy or c ust om ref erred t o is t he Cit y of No rt on ’ s alleged f ailure t o
t rain an d su perv ise it s agen t s. A f ailure t o t rain m ay be a § 1 9 8 3 v iolat ion on ly if it am ou nt s t o
deliberate indiff erence to risk of constitutional injury. See Cant on v . Cit y of Harris, 4 8 9 U. S. 3 7 8,
3 8 8 -8 9 (19 8 9 ). A ppellant s do no t plead any o f t his. In addit ion, non e of t he A ppellees are
employees of the City of Norton, w hich is also fatal to the claim.
Conclusion
Th e Dist ric t Cou rt ’ s J ud gm ent is A FFIRM ED as t o all c laim s and all Def end ant s.

-- 8 of 8 --