Linetsky v. City of Solon

YURY A. LINETSKY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SOLON, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

November 23, 2016

OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Docs. 44, 45 & 58]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Plaintiff Yury Linetsky here sues his ex-wife, his daughter, law enforcement officers and the City of Solon after he was arrested but never convicted of fondling his daughter. Against a backdrop where his intellectually limited and psychologically impaired daughter became fodder in his divorce, Linetsky says police did not have probable cause to arrest and charge him.

As against Defendant-Officers Michael Gantt and Keith Kulak, Plaintiff Linetsky alleges claims for unlawful arrest, failure to investigate, and malicious prosecution.¹ As against Defendant Detective Kristi Harvey, Linetsky alleges a claim for malicious prosecution.² As against Defendant City of Solon, Linetsky alleges claims for failure to train or supervise and supervisor liability.³ And as against Defendants Bayan Linetsky-Gliner and Marina Gliner, Linetsky alleges state law claims for malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy.⁴

Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants City of Solon, Gantt, Kulak, and Harvey's motion for summaryjudgment as to all § 1983 claims, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants Linetsky-Gliner and Gliner's motions for summary judgment.

I. Background

Before state authorities, Plaintiff's child, Defendant Bayan Linetsky-Gliner, alleged that Plaintiff Yury Linetsky sexually abused her. Bayan Linetsky-Gliner is the adopted daughter of Plaintiff Yury Linetsky. Bayan Linetsky-Gliner's allegations resulted in Ohio charging and prosecuting Linetsky with two counts of gross sexual imposition and two counts of kidnapping with a sexual motivation. After these state court criminal charges were dropped, Plaintiff Yury Linetsky sues persons involved with the charges and investigation.

The Linetsky-Gliner Family History

Plaintiff Yury Linetsky married Defendant Marina Gliner in 1992. Ten years later, they adopted Bayan Linetsky-Gliner from an orphanage in Kazakhstan.⁵ At the time of the adoption and after, Bayan Linetsky-Gliner was intellectually limited and suffered psychological problems. When she was adopted, Bayan Linetsky-Gliner could only speak a few words, and did not know the alphabet or numbers in any language.⁶ She was later diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), generalized anxiety disorder, and mild intellectual disability.⁷ In tenth grade, Bayan Linetsky-Gliner was testing at a sixth grade equivalent and earned a full-scale IQ of 75.⁸

The marriage failed. In March 2006, Gliner filed for divorce and two years of contentious divorce proceedings followed.⁹

Gliner sought and obtained custody of their daughter. Although Gliner was given custody, Plaintiff Linetsky received visitation rights on alternating weekends.¹⁰ Child custody proceedings continued through 2013, when Linetsky-Gliner, then an 18-year-old junior at Solon High School, moved out of her mother's house to live with her father.¹¹

Initial Allegations of Sexual Abuse

Plaintiff Yury Linetsky alleges that Defendant Solon Police Officers Michael Gantt and Keith Kulak, as well as Solon Police Detective Kristi Harvey, recommended Linetsky's arrest and prosecution.¹² Plaintiff Linetsky alleges Gantt and Kulak unconstitutionally caused his arrest without probable cause.¹³ Gantt and Kulak respond that probable cause existed for their arrest recommendation; that a magistrate with knowledge of all relevant information authorized the arrest; and they are qualifiedly immune in any case.¹⁴

Over several days in January 2014, Plaintiff's child, Linetsky-Gliner, told a high school assistant principal and other Solon High School counselors that her father had drunkenly fondled her during the Christmas 2013 winter break.¹⁵ She said Plaintiff Yury Linetsky had put his hands under her sleepwear before drunkenly falling asleep.¹⁶ Solon Police Officers Michael Gantt and Keith Kulak investigated the allegations and took a statement from Linetsky-Gliner that was similar to the statement that Linetsky-Gliner had given school officials, although with minor differences.¹⁷

Defendant Linetsky-Gliner also told Officer Gantt that her father had inappropriately touched her in the past, but said that this was the first time he had touched her under her clothes.¹⁸ Officer Gantt did not ask school officials whether Linetsky-Gliner had mental health problems or learning disabilities.¹⁹

Officer Gantt reported that probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff Yury Linetsky.²⁰ Defendant Officer Kulak and supervisor, Sergeant McGee, agreed. Supervising Sergeant McGee directed Gantt to arrest him.²¹ A deputy clerk of court signed the arrest warrant. The deputy was also a Solon Police Department dispatcher.²²

As this was unfolding, Defendant Gliner came to the Solon Police Department and gave a written statement about a "very precise" 2003 observation.²³ In her statement, Gliner wrote that approximately six months after Bayan Linetsky-Gliner's adoption, she walked into her daughter's room and witnessed Linetsky sitting on the bed looking between the girl's legs, which were up in the air and unclothed.²⁴

Linetsky's Arrest & Indictment

On January 10, 2014, Solon police officers arrested Plaintiff Yury Linetsky and brought him to the Solon Police Department.²⁵ Two days later, Linetsky was released on bond.²⁶

In May 2014, Officer Gantt gave grand jury testimony about the alleged sexual assault.²⁷ On May 21, 2014, the grand jury indicted Linetsky on four counts: two counts for the 2003Kidnapping and Gross Sexual Imposition events, and two counts for the December 2013 Kidnapping and Gross Sexual Imposition events.²⁸

More Allegations

After Plaintiff Linetsky's May 2014 indictment, Linetsky-Gliner made additional allegations against her father. In October 2014, she told Solon Police Detective Harvey that her father abused her before the winter break incident, including incidents of vaginal penetration.²⁹ She upped the ante in January 2015, telling Detective Harvey that her father had raped her that month.³⁰

Later in January 2015, Linetsky-Gliner came up with even more allegations. She told Detective Harvey that her father had begun digitally penetrating her in the fourth grade, and had sexual intercourse with her since the sixth grade.³¹ Michael Stacko, Linetsky-Gliner's friend, similarly reported to Detective Harvey that Linetsky-Gliner had told him her father had raped her thirty to forty times since seventh grade.³²

Defendant former wife Gliner also contributed additional post-indictment allegations against Linetsky. In a February 24, 2015 email to Detective Harvey, Gliner stated that Linetsky began "molesting" their daughter two or three years after she filed for divorce.³³

Recantations

Several months after these new January 2015 allegations and in March 2015, Linetsky-Gliner told Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Ronni Ducoff that she wanted to "take everything back."³⁴ Linetsky-Gliner gave a written statement that her father had not raped her on January 8, 2015. After Linetsky-Gliner's recantation, the police closed the investigation for the January 2015 rape.³⁵ On April 1, 2015, Linetsky-Gliner sent Detective Harvey an email stating that she wished to recant all of her allegations, including those from January 2014.³⁶ The prosecution dismissed all charges without prejudice on June 15, 2015.³⁷

In deposition testimony, Linetsky-Gliner claims that her mother had encouraged her to make false allegations of sexual abuse. Linetsky-Gliner testified that her mother "forced [her] to write a police report and that it was all [her mother Gliner's] fault that [she] had to go through this."³⁸ Gliner "would tell [her daughter] to go to the police department, talk to Detective Harvey, or she would call the police."³⁹ In a September 17, 2014 text message to her mother, Linetsky-Gliner wrote, "U forced me to file a police report when I didn't have to."⁴⁰

Likewise, after her mother had Linetsky-Gliner jailed for a week in April 2015, Linetsky-Gliner withdrew her recantation because she believed that her mother would not bail her out unless she supported the allegation that her father had sexually molested her.⁴¹ After Linetsky-Gliner was released from jail, her mother drafted contract rules that Linetsky-Gliner needed tofollow to live in Gliner's home, to receive her $25 weekly allowance, to have access to a phone and car, and to host a graduation party.⁴² Under Rule 3, titled "Respect for Family," the contract states "you want to win."⁴³ Linetsky-Gliner testified that this referred to the sexual abuse case against her father, and that living with her mother was conditioned on her desire to win that case.⁴⁴

Procedural History

On January 9, 2016, Plaintiff Linetsky filed a Complaint against Defendants Gantt, Kulak, Harvey, City of Solon, Linetsky-Gliner, and Gliner.⁴⁵ Plaintiff claims various federal constitutional claims against Officers Gantt, Kulak, Detective Harvey and the City of Solon for unlawful arrest, failure to investigate, malicious prosecution, and failure to train or supervise. He also alleges state law claims against Linetsky-Gliner and Gliner for civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy.⁴⁶

All Defendants move for summary judgment on all claims.⁴⁷

II. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "[s]ummary judgment is proper when 'there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"⁴⁸ The moving party must first demonstrate that there is an absence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact entitling it to judgment....