Harold D. Young v. City of Logan, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio adopts a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation in Harold D. Young’s pro se action concerning the alleged seizure and transfer of checks by a Logan police officer. The court allows Young’s individual-capacity Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim against Officer Kyle Arnett to proceed, dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice, denies Young’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and overrules objections concerning nondispositive motions. The court also denies two motions to amend but grants Young thirty days to seek leave to file a new amended complaint.

Holdings

1. Young failed to plausibly allege that a City of Logan policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violation. His § 1983 claims against the City and corresponding official-capacity claims against Officer Arnett were dismissed without prejudice.
2. Young failed to state a procedural due process claim because he did not show that Ohio lacked adequate post-deprivation remedies.
3. Young failed to state a substantive due process claim because the alleged conduct did not shock the conscience and financial-record privacy is not a fundamental right recognized by the Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit.
4. Young's Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim against Officer Kyle Arnett in his individual capacity could proceed.
5. Young failed to state actionable claims under Ohio Revised Code § 1349.19 or for negligence, conversion, invasion of privacy, or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
6. Young was not entitled to a TRO or preliminary injunction because the requested relief concerned alleged retaliation not pleaded in the complaint and he failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
7. The magistrate judge's denial of Young's motion to preserve body-camera footage and motion for pro se electronic filing rights was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Young plausibly alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Logan under Monell.
2. Whether Young plausibly alleged procedural or substantive due process violations based on the alleged seizure and dissemination of his checks.
3. Whether Young stated actionable Ohio statutory or tort claims.
4. Whether Young was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction based on alleged retaliation and potential evidence destruction.
5. Whether the magistrate judge's rulings on preservation of body-camera footage and pro se electronic filing rights were clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
6. Whether Young should be permitted to amend his complaint.

Disposition

other