Listen to this article
Where a plaintiff filed a complaint after she was arrested, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed in part and reversed in part.
“Niki Frenchko filed this civil-rights action after she was arrested at a Trumbull County Board of Commissioners meeting while serving as one of three elected commissioners. After running on a campaign platform to expose corruption and inefficiencies purportedly committed by her fellow commissioners, Frenchko sought to deliver on that promise. At a June 2022 meeting, Frenchko accused the Trumbull County Jail and Trumbull County Sheriff’s Department of ignoring concerns of inmate mistreatment. Her accusations angered her fellow commissioners and the County Sheriff, Paul Monroe. During a meeting later that summer, Commission Chair Frank Fuda asked the county clerk to read into the record a letter prepared by Monroe denying Frenchko’s claims of inmate mistreatment. Frenchko’s actions during the reading of the letter led two Sheriff’s Department officials to arrest her for disrupting a lawful meeting in violation of Ohio Revised Code §2917.12(A)(1). Frenchko asserted civil-rights violations relating to her arrest against her fellow commissioners; three Trumbull County Sheriff’s Department officials; and Trumbull County, its Sheriff’s Department, and its Board of Commissioners. She moved for partial summary judgment; the defendants raised various immunity defenses and moved for summary judgment on all counts. The district court granted in part and denied in part both Frenchko’s motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment. The defendants appeal. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND.
“Defendants contend that the facts in the record do not support a reasonable conclusion that they violated Frenchko’s Fourth Amendment rights. So the district court wrongly denied them qualified immunity on that claim. Viewing all facts in the light most favorable to Frenchko and rejecting any disputed facts, we agree.
“Before considering the merits of Frenchko’s claims, we first consider a threshold matter. To make out her §1983 claims, Frenchko must establish that each defendant was personally involved in the arrest. Fuda, Cantalamessa, and Monroe argue that they were not personally involved in her arrest, so she cannot maintain a claim of retaliatory arrest against them. We agree.
“We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, VACATE the district court’s order granting Frenchko partial summary judgment, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Dissenting judge’s comments
NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. “I concur with nearly all of the majority’s analysis. But on one key point, I part ways. By failing to apply the longstanding rule that conspirators can be liable for each other’s acts under §1983, the majority improperly grants qualified immunity to Fuda, Cantalamessa, and Monroe (the Non-Officer Defendants) on Frenchko’s First Amendment retaliation claim. But at the same time, it properly recognizes that live questions remain as to whether Wix and Ross (the Officer Defendants) should receive qualified immunity on that claim. That differential result flows from the majority’s conclusion that the conspiracy issue is not properly before us. I disagree. So I would remand the retaliation claim for all the individual defendants, not just the Officers. ”
