United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025-07-09
42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; driver sued police officers, the former police chief and the metro government under § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure, selective enforcement, false arrest, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence and Monell liability; district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; CA6 affirmed on the time-barred claims and on malicious prosecution, reversed on fabrication of evidence, vacated and remanded on Monell; result: mixed; claim:
Uncertainty
opinion: the IR text is a single paragraph (slip-opinion layout); the span starts at "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge." after the caption and counsel listing; footnotes 1 and 2 and page headers are embedded in the span.
Element deprivation.fourth-amendment: route: no Fourth Amendment route covers fabrication of evidence used to charge (pre-conviction); the fabricated-evidence route exists only under deprivation.due-process-fair-trial, which this court says does not govern.
Element x-malicious-prosecution: basis: summary judgment for defendants on undisputed facts; [no-evidence] per the basis rule, though the court treats probable cause here as established as a matter of law.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 20
| Case | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 20
| Case | Common-law absolute immunity (judicial, prosecutorial, legislative, witness functions) | Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity bar (official-capacity damages / retrospective relief) | Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar | Borrowed state personal-injury statute of limitations (42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia; Owens v. Okure) | Issue preclusion / collateral estoppel from prior state criminal or civil judgment (Allen v. McCurry) | Judicial standing prerequisite, separate from damages remedy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 20
| Case | Statutory bar on injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity (1996 amendment) | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | District of Columbia exclusive Act of Congress inclusion clause (1979 amendment) | Rejected extra element: separate proof of "abuse of governmental power" (Collins v. City of Harker Heights) | Federal action / Fifth Amendment claim (outside § 1983 state-law scope) | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–20 of 20
| Case | Appellate preservation / forfeiture of issue not raised in district court | Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim (Fourth Amendment / procedural due process) |
|---|---|---|
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; party: Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count: fabrication-of-evidence claim (planted methamphetamine and marijuana, photo given to the prosecutor); subject: party=Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count=fabrication-of-evidence claim (planted methamphetamine and marijuana, photo given to the prosecutor) The court places the claim under the Fourth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause, because Codrington was charged but never convicted on the allegedly fabricated evidence. Circumstantial evidence and his own unequivocal denial suffice at summary judgment; "affirmative proof" of planting is not required. | drugs allegedly planted in a patrol car after three fruitless searches, undocumented by body cameras, and a photo with items not the arrestee's handed to the prosecutor | The officers admit that the photo they submitted to the prosecutor contained items—a handgun and two magazines—that did not belong to Codrington.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [21100:21245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Moreover, throughout his criminal proceedings and this litigation, Codrington unequivocally denied possessing the methamphetamine found in Dolak’s vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [22226:22381] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Notably, Kirk’s body camera “did not work throughout the entire incident,” and Blissett turned off his body camera about 45 minutes before they departed the gas station for the booking facility.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [20807:21001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.In fact, the district court lamented that “[a]lthough the police work here was dubious, there is no affirmative proof that the officers planted narcotics.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [23681:23836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.To prevail on this claim, Codrington must show that defendants “fabricated evidence presented to a grand jury or to a judge determining probable cause.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [19346:19498] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Given this evidence, Codrington has demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers fabricated evidence and used that evidence to charge him with crimes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [23046:23226] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a. |
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government; count: Monell claims (custom of race-based traffic stops; failure to train); subject: party=Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government; count=Monell claims (custom of race-based traffic stops; failure to train) The district court rejected the Monell claims only because no underlying violation survived; with the fabrication claim revived, the judgment on Monell is vacated and the merits are left to the district court. | _derivative | “there can be no liability under Monell without an underlying constitutional violation.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [29909:29997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Given our No. 24-5831 Codrington v. Dolak, et al. Page 14 revival of the fabrication-of-evidence claim, we vacate the district court’s Monell conclusions and remand for the district court to consider the merits in the first instance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [30454:30687] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a. |
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Borrowed state personal-injury statute of limitations (42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia; Owens v. Okure) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count: unlawful search and seizure, selective enforcement and false arrest / imprisonment claims; subject: party=Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count=unlawful search and seizure, selective enforcement and false arrest / imprisonment claims Search-and-seizure claim accrued at the search; selective-enforcement and false-arrest claims accrued when legal process began (grand jury charge). The fabrication and malicious-prosecution claims were timely because they accrue on favorable termination (n. 2) and are not part of this block. A new "continuing trespass" accrual argument was forfeited. | Kentucky one-year period; claims accrued at the 2018 search or at the 2019 indictment and suit was filed in November 2021 | Codrington’s complaint challenges the unlawful search and seizure of his person, which occurred on August 10, 2018.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [10294:10409] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.But he did not file his complaint until November 3, 2021, more than two years after the search.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [10542:10637] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.As explained above, Kentucky initiated legal process against Codrington, at the latest, on February 12, 2019, when a grand jury charged him with his alleged crimes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [17429:17593] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Indeed, Codrington conceded at oral argument that, with respect to the search and seizure of his person, this claim is time-barred.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [10785:10916] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Therefore, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a), Codrington’s § 1983 claims are governed by a one-year statute of limitations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [9358:9490] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Because Codrington filed suit more than a year after these claims accrued, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on these three claims.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [9610:9787] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a. |
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim (Fourth Amendment / procedural due process) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count: malicious-prosecution claim; subject: party=Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count=malicious-prosecution claim The claim fails on the lack-of-probable-cause element alone. The court also holds, joining other circuits, that the exclusionary rule and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine do not apply in § 1983 cases, so illegally seized evidence may establish probable cause. | undisputed, non-fabricated marijuana, grinder and firearm found in the car supplied probable cause even though the search had been held illegal | And although Codrington admitted that the little baggie of marijuana came from his car, he testified that the bigger bag was not his.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [21246:21379] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Because the exclusionary rule does not forbid us from considering the indisputably non- fabricated evidence located in Codrington’s vehicle, we can rely upon the small amount of marijuana, marijuana grinder, and legal firearm seized from the vehicle to determine whether defendants had probable cause to arrest Codrington.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [28404:28726] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.The Jefferson County Circuit Court agreed and granted the motion to suppress before ultimately dismissing the charges against him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [6811:6941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Unlike the fabrication-of-evidence claim, which requires the act of using falsified evidence, malicious prosecution concerns prosecution without probable cause.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [25397:25557] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Putting aside the questions of fact regarding the allegedly fabricated evidence, the undisputed facts established probable cause for the officers to arrest and charge Codrington with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia while possessing a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [26132:26403] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Consequently, we vacate the district court’s derivative judgment in favor of defendants on Codrington’s claims under Monell v.
Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
Consequently, we vacate the district court’s derivative judgment in favor of defendants on Codrington’s claims under Monell v.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [2309:2435] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Satisfied by (1) an express municipal policy, (2) a widespread practice/custom so permanent and well settled as to have the force of law, (3) an act of an official with final policymaking authority (Pembaur; Praprotnik), or (4) deliberate indifference in failure to train/supervise (`policy.failure-to-train`).