Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447 (6th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hensley v. Gassman, 763 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mich. 2011)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 450 Affirming summary judgment on class-based discrimination claim10 citing casesno state action requirement under § 1985(3)2 citing courts put it this way
  • Bettio v. Vill. of Northfield, 775 F. Supp. 1545 (N.D. Ohio 1991).published
    Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir.1981); Ohio Inns, Inc. v. Nye, 542 F.2d 673, 677 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 946 , 97 S.Ct. 1583 , 51 L.Ed.2d 794 (1977).
  • Edward Lee Dunn v. State of Tennessee, 697 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1983).published
    Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir.1981).
  • Coon v. Froehlich, 556 F. Supp. 115 (S.D. Ohio 1983).published
    Finally, the six Defendants, who are not alleged to have acted under color of state law, may nevertheless be held liable under § 1983 if they “jointly participated” in the actions of state officials, Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. supra, 102 S…
  • Sell v. Price, 527 F. Supp. 114 (S.D. Ohio 1981).published
    Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28 , 101 S.Ct. 183, 186 , 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).
  • Deja Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, No. 19-5557 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020).unpublished
    (affirming grant of summary judgment on § 1985(3)
  • Norris v. Stark Cnty., 51 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 1995).unpublished
    See Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam); Smith v. Martin, 542 F.2d 688, 690 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 905 (1977).
  • Volunteer Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 948 F.2d 218 (6th Cir. 1991).published
    (no state action requirement under § 1985(3))
  • Volunteer Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Operation Rescue, 948 F.2d 218 (6th Cir. 1991).published
    (no state action requirement under § 1985(3))
  • Annunziato v. New Haven Bd. of Aldermen, 555 F. Supp. 427 (D. Conn. 1982).published
    See Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam); Powell v. Kopman, 511 F.Supp. 700, 704 (S.D.N.Y.1981).
  • James C. Saunders v. Margarette Ghee Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 48 F.3d 1219 (6th Cir. 1995).published
    See also Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam); Smith v. Martin, 542 F.2d 688, 690 (6th Cir.1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 905 (1977).
At page 449 Affirming summary judgment on class-based conspiracy claim11 citing casestivities of the various defendants taken in response to the recall petitions. The first two counts were based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the third count was…opening of page *449 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 9 listed here
  • Hensley v. Gassman, 763 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Mich. 2011).published
    See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 24 , 101 S.Ct. 183 , 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449 (6th Cir.1981).
  • Spurlock v. Whitley, 971 F. Supp. 1166 (M.D. Tenn. 1997).published
    Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 , 101 S.Ct. 183 , 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449-50 (6th Cir.1981).
  • Bennett v. Batchik, 936 F.2d 572 (6th Cir. 1991).unpublished
    Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449-50 (6th Cir.1981).
  • James Durelle Boles v. Charles D. Haston, 831 F.2d 293 (6th Cir. 1987).unpublished
    Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449-50 (6th Cir. 1981), later appeal, 760 F.2d 95 (6th Cir. 1985). 12 There is no doubt that Boles' federal court complaint speaks of 'concerted action' among the federal court defendants but as far as the com…
  • Joseph v. Patterson, 795 F.2d 549 (6th Cir. 1986).published 2 cites
    Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 437 (10th Cir.1985); Lerwill v. Joslin, 712 F.2d 435, 437-38 (10th Cir.1983); Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam); Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 632 (7th Cir.1979); Smart v.…
  • Macko v. Byron, 760 F.2d 95 (6th Cir. 1985).published 4 cites
    Macko v. Byron, 641 F.2d at 449-50. 5 Plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint in which they deleted as defendants the prosecutor and his assistant.
  • Balderaz v. Porter, 578 F. Supp. 1491 (S.D. Ohio 1983).published
    See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-29 , 101 S.Ct. 183, 186-87 , 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449-50 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam). 3 .
  • Melson v. Kroger Co., 578 F. Supp. 691 (S.D. Ohio 1983).published
    See, Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-29 , 101 S.Ct. 183, 186-187 , 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980); Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449-50 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam).
  • Brooks v. Fitch, 534 F. Supp. 129 (D.N.J. 1981).published
    See e.g., Macko v. Bryon, 641 F.2d 447, 449 (6th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (malicious indictments); Norton v. Liddel, 620 F.2d 1375, 1379 (10th Cir. 1980) (information signed by district attorney in malicious prosecution case); Lee v. Willin…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joanne MACKO, Helen Mertineit and John Szabo
v.
Barry BRYON, Melvin G. Schaeffer, Sabby J. DeFrank, Robert Morehead, Mortan O'Ryan, Lawrence O'Connell, George Kraincic, Marilyn Monzula, Paul Mitrovich, Stephen John Futterer
No. 79-3473.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 19, 1981.
Published opinion
641 F.2d 447
1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20042
Joanne Macko, pro se., Helen Martineit, pro se., John Szabo, pro se., Burt Fulton, Cleveland, Ohio, for DeFrank, Morehead, O’Ryan, O’Connell, Kraincic., Mark O’Neill, Cleveland, Ohio, for Byron, Schaeffer, Monzula.
Keith, Lively, Phillips.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

In this civil rights action the plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations by the defendants following circulation by the plaintiffs of recall petitions against various public officials of the City of Willoughby Hills, Ohio. The district court dismissed the defendants Mitrovich and Futterer, the prosecutor and assistant prosecutor of Lake County, Ohio, on the basis of prosecutorial immunity and granted summary judgment in favor of the other defendants.

In their complaint as amended the plaintiffs charged separate constitutional violations in three counts related to alleged ac[*449]tivities of the various defendants taken in response to the recall petitions. The first two counts were based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the third count was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The gravamen of the first count was that the defendant Monzula, Clerk of the City Council of Willoughby Hills, acting under color of state law and in concert with other defendants, refused to validate the petitions and otherwise acted to render them invalid and to prevent the petitions from appearing on the November 1976 ballot. It was claimed that these activities deprived the plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws and of privileges and immunities guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The district court granted summary judgment on this claim on the basis of a decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio which held that the recall petitions of the plaintiffs were invalid. This decision was rendered by the Ohio Court in a mandamus action brought by these plaintiffs to require the defendant Monzula to certify the petitions to the city council for inclusion on the ballot. See State ex rel. Macko v. Monzula, 48 Ohio St.2d 35, 356 N.E.2d 493 (1976).

The district court reasoned that the first count in the present action was premised entirely on the existence of valid recall petitions. Since the Ohio Supreme Court had held the petitions invalid, the defendant Monzula did not act unlawfully in refusing to certify them and there could have been no illegal conspiracy between Monzula and the other defendants to keep the petitions off the ballot. We agree with the district court and affirm the order insofar as it granted summary judgment on the claim contained in count one of the complaint.

The second count of the complaint charged that the prosecutor and assistant prosecutor violated constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by maliciously causing them to be indicted and arrested for perjury and other offenses in connection with the recall petitions. The other defendants were charged in essence with conspiring with the two prosecutors, acting under color of state law, to deprive plaintiffs of the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances and their right to be free of unlawful prosecution and arrest. The district court held that the two prosecutors were entitled to immunity from a suit for damages for actions taken in their official capacities. On appeal the plaintiffs contend that these two defendants were acting in an investigating, rather than a prosecuting role. However, our examination of the allegations of the complaint leads to the conclusion that the activities of the two prosecutors which were the basis of count two were within the scope of their duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution. A state prosecuting attorney, so acting, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). The order dismissing the defendants Mitrovich and Futterer is affirmed.

The district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants on the claim contained in count two. It reasoned that with dismissal of the only two state officials clothed with authority to initiate criminal prosecutions, the allegations against the other defendants failed to state a claim of conduct “under color of law” as required to support recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1982:

As the public officials alleged to have procured the indictments have been dismissed from the action the defendants who are alleged to have conspired with such officials as regards prosecution of the plaintiffs are not subject to suit under § 1983. Kurz v. State of Michigan, 548 F.2d 172, 173, 175 (CA 6, 1977).

In making this ruling the district court did not have the benefit of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dennis v. Sparks and Lynd, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185, (1980). In that case a claim for damages under § 1983 was based upon an alleged unlawful conspiracy between a judge and other defendants who were private parties. The Supreme Court held that immuni[*450]ty of the judge did not require dismissal of the claim against the other parties accused of conspiring with him. The allegation of joint action with a state official satisfies the requirement of § 1983 that the unlawful actions of the other defendants be taken under color of state law, even though the state official in question enjoys absolute immunity. This court’s decision in Kurz v. State of Michigan was impliedly overruled in Dennis v. Sparks and Lynd. The order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants O’Connell, DeFrank, Morehead, O’Ryan, Kraincic, Bryon, Schaeffer and Monzula on the claim set forth in count two of the complaint is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings with respect thereto.

The claim in the third count of the complaint is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). All prior allegations were incorporated by reference and the defendants were charged with conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The two prosecutors had been dismissed prior to the addition of this claim in the amended complaint. The district court granted summary judgment upon finding that the amended complaint contains no allegation “that defendants acted with a class-based invidiously discriminatory animus.” The district court properly construed the requirements for a claim under § 1985(3). Though state action is not required, there must be some cognizable class which is the object of the conspiracy. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). The order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the claim contained in count three of the amended complaint is affirmed.

The cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.