United States Sixth Circuit

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a city, a police officer, and a swimming pool supervisor, for having his pool access denied after complaints from some members that he was staring at children inappropriately, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) plaintiff did not have a property interest in his $10 city pool token sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause; and 2) it is clear that plaintiff had a liberty interest to remain in public place of his choice and that defendants interfered with this interest by banning him from entering any property deemed a part of the city's recreational system without procedural due process.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/03/2009
• Decided 02/16/2010
• Published 02/16/2010

Judges

• Before GRIFFIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; CARR, Chief District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Peter J. Stackpole, City Of Cincinnati, Office of City Solicitor, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. Steven F. Stuhlbarg, Law Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Peter J. Stackpole, City of Cincinnati, Office of City Solicitor, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellants. Steven F. Stuhlbarg, Law Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.