Enoch v. Hogan

8 Citing cases

  1. Enoch v. Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    Case No. 1:16-cv-661 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 1, 2021)

    This Court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, in part, on plaintiffs' claims against defendant Neil in his individual capacity and plaintiffs' claims against all defendants based on excessive use of force (Count IV), malicious prosecution under state law (Count VII), false imprisonment and false arrest under state law (Count IX), and assault and battery under state law (Count XI). (Doc. 61; Enoch v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Off., No. 1:16-cv-661, 2017 WL 2210515 (S.D. Ohio May 5, 2017), aff'd and remanded sub nom. Enoch v. Hogan, 728 Fed.Appx. 448 (6th Cir. 2018). This Court denied defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs' remaining claims, including (1) plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against defendant Neil in his official capacity and against the deputies in their individual capacity alleging a violation of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Count I), unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment (Count II), false arrest/unlawful detention/false imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment (Count III), and malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count V); (2) plaintiffs' § 1983 claim against defendant Neil in his official capacity based on “ratification” under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count VI); and (3) plaintiffs' state law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VIII) and invasion of privacy (Count X). (Id.).

  2. Enoch v. Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    No. 22-3946 (6th Cir. Jul. 31, 2024)

    This court affirmed. Enoch v. Hogan, 728 Fed.Appx. 448, 449 (6th Cir. 2018) (Enoch I). We held that Hogan and Nobles were not entitled to qualified immunity based on the allegations in the pleadings because, although the deputies claimed their actions were justified under Rule 33, the text of the Rule does not expressly state that recording is prohibited in courtroom hallways.

  3. Enoch v. Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    Case No. 19-3428 (6th Cir. Jun. 11, 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In Enoch v. Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, 818 Fed.Appx. 398 (6th Cir. 2020), the court considered the application of a local court rule prohibiting recording “in any courtroom or hearing room, jury room, judge's chambers or ancillary area (to be determined in the sole discretion of the Court) without the express permission of the Court,” in accordance the parties' agreement that the hallway outside the courtroom was a limited public forum.

    At the pleadings stage the district court denied qualified immunity for the arresting officers, Sheriff's Deputies Gene Nobles and Brian Hogan (together, "the Deputies"), and a panel of this court affirmed. Enoch v. Hogan, 728 F. App'x 448 (6th Cir. 2018) (Enoch I). At summary judgment the district court again denied qualified immunity to the Deputies on the First and Fourth Amendment claims, granted summary judgment to Enoch and Corbin on three of those claims (Counts I, II and II), and denied summary judgment on the remaining claims. For the reasons stated below, we REVERSE the district court's denial of qualified immunity, AFFIRM the district court's denial of state-law immunity to all Defendants-Appellants, DISMISS the interlocutory appeal of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  4. Allen v. Lo

    3:23-cv-01148 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 27, 2024)

    To overcome the presumption of qualified immunity at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff must plead facts showing that (1) the official violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of the official's conduct was “clearly established at the time,” such that every reasonable person in the official's position would have known that what he is doing violates that right. See Reed v. Campbell Cnty., 80 F.4th 734, 742 (6th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted); Kennedy v. Cincinnati, 595 F.3d 327, 336 (6th Cir. 2010); Enoch v. Hogan, 728 Fed.Appx. 448, 452-53 (6th Cir. 2018). The Court may consider these two prongs in any sequential order.

  5. Harris v. McAlistor

    No. 22-CV-75-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 8, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Without some further indication of how Harris's conduct violated some reasonable restriction on his First Amendment rights, the Court concludes that he has pleaded a viable First Amendment claim against the New York State defendants.Cf. Enoch v. Hogan, 728 Fed.Appx. 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2018) (“accept[ing the plaintiffs'] allegation that they had violated no rule or law” in filming in the courthouse hallway and affirming denial of qualified immunity on First Amendment claim)

  6. Enoch v. Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff

    1:16-cv-661 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 9, 2022)

    Enoch v. Hogan, 728 Fed.Appx. 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2018). The parties here offered evidence relating to the courthouse recording rules, the way the deputies were trained regarding those rules, and the Sheriff's enforcement of those rules.

  7. Romero v. City of Middletown

    479 F. Supp. 3d 660 (S.D. Ohio 2020)   Cited 6 times

    But, at this stage of the litigation, without discovery, and looking only at the pleadings, in addressing the qualified immunity issue the Court draws all reasonable inferences in Romero's favor as it is required to do. SeeGreer v. City of Highland Park , 884 F.3d 310, 313 n.1 (6th Cir. 2018) ; Enoch v. Hogan , 728 F. App'x 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2018). And the allegations do not suggest that Romero impeded the individual defendants’ abilities to fulfill their duties and functions, as they claim, but rather that he was encouraging them to do their jobs better.

  8. Enoch v. Hamilton Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    Case No. 1:16-cv-661 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 19, 2019)

    The Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's Order on appeal in a decision issued on March 23, 2018. Enoch v. Hogan, 728 F. App'x 448 (6th Cir. 2018). First, the Court of Appeals found that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity with regard to plaintiffs' claims of Fourth Amendment violations based on unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest and malicious prosecution.