NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0112n.06 Case No. 19-3264 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED GLENDA PRADO, ) Feb 20, 2020 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF JEFFREY THOMAS et al., ) OHIO ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION ) BEFORE: McKEAGUE, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After a night of dancing but no drinking, Plaintiff Glenda Prado was arrested and detained for suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence. Those charges were eventually dropped. But Prado alleged that law enforcement had singled her out and mistreated her during the night. So she sued Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Thomas and other Defendants alleging that they violated her equal protection and due process rights. And she brought civil conspiracy and failure to train or supervise claims. She sought damages for all alleged violations. Following discovery, the district court granted Defendants summary judgment. We AFFIRM. I. Glenda Prado is a Legal Permanent Resident of the United States. She came to this country from Ecuador and still speaks with a thick Spanish accent. She characterizes herself as having “long, black wavy hair and Latin features.” (Appellant’s Br. at 4.) No. 19-3264, Prado v. Thomas et al. After a late night of Latin dancing, Prado stopped at a Circle K to pick up some refreshments. Her friend from Ecuador stayed in the car. While inside, Prado noticed Deputy Sheriff Jeffrey Thomas and another white man paying. She observed Thomas looking at her and his gaze made her uncomfortable. So she bought a water and a Sprite and left the store. Prado drove away from the Circle K. Thomas followed Prado’s car for about five minutes before stopping her. Once stopped, Thomas let Prado know he stopped her for three reasons: (1) her trunk was open, (2) she was allegedly driving well under the speed limit (35 miles per hour in a 55-miles-per-hour zone), and (3) she allegedly used her turn signal while exiting her parking space. Prado explained that she only slowed for the traffic light.1 But she conceded her trunk was open. She told Thomas that her daughter likely retrieved chicken feed from the trunk earlier that day and had not closed it correctly. Thomas shined his light in Prado’s eyes and observed they were bloodshot, which Prado also conceded. (R. 56, Prado Dep., PageID 533 (explaining that she told Thomas “yeah” in response to his observation that Prado’s eyes appeared bloodshot and explaining that “it’s almost 2:00 in the morning, . . . [she] has [] high blood pressure[,] and didn’t sleep”).) And he requested Prado’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Because he noticed that some of Prado’s documents had expired, Thomas returned to his cruiser to gather more information. On his way back to his cruiser, Thomas lifted Prado’s trunk open wider before closing it for her. 1 On appeal, she claims that she clearly rejected ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals