Summary
This federal district court opinion and order addresses defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in a civil rights and tort action. The court evaluates claims of wrongful prosecution, malicious prosecution, and various negligence theories against a former board inspector and the board's executive director. Applying standards for absolute, quasi-judicial, and qualified immunity, as well as Kentucky's statute of limitations and qualified official immunity doctrine, the court partially grants and partially denies the motions to dismiss while granting leave to amend.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Back is entitled to absolute immunity for his investigative report.
- Whether Back is entitled to quasi‑judicial immunity for the claims in Count I.
- Whether Back is entitled to qualified immunity for the §1983 claim.
- Whether Back is entitled to qualified official immunity for the malicious prosecution claim.
- Whether Campbell is entitled to qualified official immunity for negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision claims.
- Whether the plaintiffs' claims survive the Rule 12(b)(6) motions.
- Whether a stay of proceedings is warranted.
Holdings
- The Court finds that the report was prepared prior to and independent of the grand‑jury testimony and therefore is not protected by absolute immunity.
- Back is not entitled to quasi‑judicial immunity because the creation of the investigative report was a non‑quasi‑judicial function.
- Back is not entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs plausibly allege that he made false statements prior to the grand‑jury process.
- Qualified official immunity does not apply to malicious prosecution claims because the claim requires proof of malice, which is inconsistent with the good‑faith requirement of the immunity doctrine.
- Campbell is not entitled to qualified official immunity for negligent hiring and retention because the conduct was ministerial, not discretionary.
- Campbell is entitled to dismissal of the negligent training and supervision claim because she failed to plead sufficient facts to show bad faith.
- The court declines to grant a stay because the administrative proceedings before the Board involve different legal and factual issues.
- Campbell’s motion to dismiss the negligent training claim is GRANTED; her motion to dismiss the negligent hiring claim is DENIED. Back’s motion to dismiss (DE 28) is DENIED as moot; Back’s motion to dismiss (DE 35) is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.
Key quotations
“The Court finds that Count I of the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint states a plausible claim.”
“Back is not entitled to quasi‑judicial immunity because the creation of the investigative report was a non‑quasi‑judicial function.”
Factual background
Plaintiffs Tara Dizney and Kendra Arthur attended the Creation School of Cosmetology in Corbin, Kentucky. Board inspector Jason Back investigated the school, prepared a report, and contacted the Whitley County Commonwealth Attorney, leading to a grand‑jury indictment of the plaintiffs, which was later dismissed. Plaintiffs sued Back and Board Chair Julie Campbell alleging wrongful prosecution, malicious prosecution, and negligence.
Procedural history
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The parties moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and the plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint.