42 USC § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution & fabrication of evidence claims under the Fourth Amendment; Whether plaintiffs established a “deprivation of liberty”; Noonan v County of Oakland (Unpub 6th Cir); Albright v Oliver; Effect of failing to plead an underlying constitutional violation on claims for supervisory, failure to intervene, & Monell liability

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence based on their failure to establish the necessary “deprivations of liberty.” Plaintiffs were African-American athletes at the University of Kentucky. They were subject to racial taunts and physical violence at a fraternity party. After the incident, defendant-Vinlove, a Lexington police officer, brought criminal charges against plaintiffs. A grand jury refused to indict. Plaintiffs, asserting that their reputations were damaged, sued Vinlove, two other police officers, and defendant-Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government. They alleged various federal claims under § 1983 as well as state-law claims. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court held that the “minimal level of criminal proceedings” plaintiffs alleged did not constitute a liberty deprivation under its case law. “‘Nowhere in [their] complaint do[] plaintiff[s] allege that [they were] “seized” or otherwise detained[.]’” They did not allege that they were ever arrested, subject to travel restrictions, or required to post bail or a bond. The court held that “the damage of having criminal proceedings brought against you under false pretenses, . . . is not a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment.” In this case, plaintiffs were “merely asserting various damages stemming from the effort to prosecute them. But the test is not damages, it is a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment.” Thus, their § 1983 malicious prosecution claim failed. In so ruling, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument based on Justice Ginsberg’s “continuing seizure” doctrine set forth in her concurrence in Albright. The court also held that plaintiffs had no viable fabrication of evidence claim due to their failure to plead a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment. And their failure to plead an underlying constitutional violation meant that they did not have any viable claims for supervisory, failure to intervene, or Monell liability.