Horner v. Cuyahoga County, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings in William Horner’s action arising from his arrest and detention related to Ohio criminal proceedings. The court held that the deputized officers were federal rather than state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that sovereign immunity barred constitutional damages claims against them in their official capacities, and that Tennessee does not recognize a civil claim for perjury. The court also dismissed the state-law tort claims against the United States for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim because Gilmer and Shockley were federally deputized and were acting under color of federal law, not state law. The court also declined to convert the § 1983 claim into a Bivens claim.
2. The court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over constitutional damages claims against Gilmer and Shockley in their official capacities because such claims are effectively claims against the United States, and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for damages claims arising directly under the Constitution.
3. Tennessee does not recognize a civil cause of action for perjury; Plaintiff's perjury claim against Shockley was dismissed.
4. Plaintiff's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress, abuse-of-process, trespass, and malicious-prosecution claims against the United States were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because he did not allege that he first presented the claims to the appropriate federal agency.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Gilmer and Shockley when they were acting under color of federal rather than state law.
2. Whether constitutional damages claims against Gilmer and Shockley in their official capacities were barred by federal sovereign immunity.
3. Whether Tennessee recognizes a civil cause of action for perjury.
4. Whether Plaintiff's state-law tort claims against the United States were barred for failure to exhaust the Federal Tort Claims Act's administrative-presentment requirement.
5. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to amend his complaint to cure the FTCA exhaustion defect.

Disposition

other