CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CRISTI CAMPBELL, Administratrix of the Estate of Bryana Baker,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
APRIL RIAHI, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of Butler County, Ohio; RICHARD K. JONES, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Butler County, Ohio; BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO; BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 23-3793
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:20-cv-00678—Douglas Russell Cole, District Judge.
Argued: June 12, 2024
Decided and Filed: July 29, 2024
Before: KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In September 2018, Bryana Baker committed suicide in the Butler County Jail, where she had been booked following her arrest on state charges. Baker’s mother, Cristi Campbell, thereafter brought this suit against the County Defendants, Sheriff Richard Jones, and a corrections officer, April Riahi, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARC M. SUSSELMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHTENAW COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; JONATHAN KING; WASHTENAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN; SUPERIOR TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 23-1486
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:20-cv-12278—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Argued: March 21, 2024
Decided and Filed: July 29, 2024
Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Marc Susselman made a federal case out of a traffic ticket. In February 2020, he drove around a police cruiser parked across the eastbound lane of traffic with its lights flashing. A Washtenaw County Sheriff’s deputy issued him a ticket for failing to yield. That ticket was dropped and, soon after, Susselman received another citation arising from the same incident for failing to obey a police officer directing traffic. The Michigan circuit court ultimately dismissed the second traffic ticket. In federal court, Susselman asserted constitutional and state law claims against Washtenaw County, the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office, the sheriff’s deputy, and Superior Township, Michigan. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims against them. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION; MARK T. RAIFF, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Olentangy Local School District; PETER STERN, in his official capacity as Olentangy’s Assistant Director of Equity and Inclusion; RANDY WRIGHT, in his official capacity as Olentangy’s Chief of Administrative Services; KEVIN DABERKOW, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; BRANDON LESTER, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; KEVIN O’BRIEN, in his official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; LIBBY WALLICK, in her official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education; LAKESHA WYSE, in her official capacity as a member of the Olentangy Board of Education,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 23-3630
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:23-cv-01595—Algenon L. Marbley, Chief District Judge.
Argued: February 1, 2024
Decided and Filed: July 29, 2024
Before: BATCHELDER, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case concerns a pre-enforcement challenge to school district policies that prohibit harassment based on a variety of protected characteristics, including—as relevant here—gender identity. The Olentangy Local School District, Ohio’s fourth largest, promulgated several anti-harassment and anti-bullying policies. The policies prohibit students from repeatedly and intentionally using non-preferred pronouns to refer to their classmates. On behalf of certain parents and students, Plaintiff Parents Defending Education (PDE) seeks to enjoin the policies’ enforcement based on the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The district court determined that PDE had not met its burden to justify injunctive relief. We AFFIRM.