Robert Carroll v. Troy Young

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 24a0239n.06
Case No. 23-5884
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT CARROLL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TROY YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OPINION
Before: BATCHELDER, NALBANDIAN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In response to a 911 call claiming an
ongoing rape, the City of Russell Springs Police Department dispatched Officer Troy Young to
the scene. When Officer Young arrived, four women were waiting for him in the parking lot of
an apartment building—one was the victim who was hysterical, crying and screaming, “he raped
me!” The other three women claimed to have witnessed the rape in progress when they entered
the victim’s apartment after hearing her screams. At the victim’s direction, Officer Young went
to her apartment where he found Robert Carroll (the accused rapist) exiting. Each of the four
women hand wrote and signed a statement of their eyewitness accounts of the rape. Officer
Young arrested Carroll, took him to a hospital for collection of a rape test kit, and provided his
evidence to the prosecutor and the grand jury, which indicted Carroll for first degree rape.
At trial, the jury acquitted Carroll. So, Carroll sued Officer Young and the City, raising
federal and state law causes of action. Following discovery, the defendants moved for summary
judgment. In a thorough and detailed opinion, the district court held that Carroll’s claims of a due
process violation, supervisory liability, failure to intervene, and state law abuse of process were

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-5884, Carroll v. Young
2
all time-barred; his Brady claim failed because he was acquitted; he failed to present evidence to
support his fabrication-of-evidence, malicious-prosecution, supervisory-liability or failure-to-
intervene claims; and Officer Young was entitled to qualified immunity. See Carroll v. Young,
No. 1:19-cv-153, 2023 WL 6151233 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 20, 2023). Carroll appeals.
After carefully reviewing the law, the parties’ arguments, and the record evidence, we
conclude that the district court correctly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the law to that
evidence. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no jurisprudential
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinions, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --