Kris J. Kinsey v. State of Ohio

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0213n.06
Case No. 19-3131
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
KRIS J. KINSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants,
COUNTY OF LORAIN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Kris Kinsey, represented by attorney
James Georgian, sued the State of Ohio, the City of Elyria, Lorain County, the County Sheriff, the
Jail Administrator, three corrections officers, a jail counselor, and a nurse for the jail, claiming that
they violated Kinsey’s constitutionally protected rights during his incarceration at the Lorain
County Jail. Georgian’s most outrageous claim is that the six hours of surveillance video in the
record is not authentic but was fabricated by the Jail to show a “doppelganger” “purporting to be
Mr. Kinsey.” Georgian nonetheless repeatedly cites to and relies on this allegedly falsified video.
This claim is not merely doubtful, nor merely even implausible; it is clearly preposterous.
Kinsey’s other claims include false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent failure to provide
medical care, assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, First
Amendment retaliation, Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel and notice of accusation, Eighth
Amendment excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment, Fourteenth Amendment

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 19-3131, Kinsey v. State of Ohio, et al.
2
due process and equal protection, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act
discrimination, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. The district court rejected
Georgian’s canard about the doppelganger video and found that, even ignoring the video and
accepting Kinsey’s own account of the events at the Jail, he had failed to state viable constitutional
claims and the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; he failed to state viable
ADA or state-law claims and the defendants were entitled to state-law immunity; and Lorain
County is not a political entity and, therefore, not a proper defendant. Consequently, the district
court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims. On appeal, Kinsey and Georgian
merely reassert the same arguments they pressed in the district court.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments on appeal, we conclude
that the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts
before it. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --