KARIM CODRINGTON v. JAY DOLAK, TYLER BLISSETT, and JOHN KIRK, individually and in their official capacities as Police Officers of Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government; STEVE CONRAD, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for Louisville- Jefferson County Metro Government; LOUISVILLE- JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT - Articles

All Content

KARIM CODRINGTON v. JAY DOLAK, TYLER BLISSETT, and JOHN KIRK, individually and in their official capacities as Police Officers of Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government; STEVE CONRAD, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for Louisville- Jefferson County Metro Government; LOUISVILLE- JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jul 9, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Paul Brzyski, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: William H. Brammell, Jr., WICKER BRAMMELL PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Paul Brzyski, Daniel N. Lerman, KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP, Washington, D.C., Shaun A. Wimberly, Sr., WIMBERLY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Susan K. Rivera, JEFFERSON COUNTY, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Judge(s): BOGGS, GRIFFIN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Karim Codrington was the victim of an unlawful traffic stop, search, and arrest. During the criminal proceedings arising from that stop, a Kentucky state court suppressed the evidence illegally seized from his vehicle and dismissed his criminal charges. More than three years later, Codrington filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit, claiming that the defendant police officers planted drugs on him, provided those drugs to prosecutors as a basis for his criminal prosecution, and stole thousands of dollars from him. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, finding that Codrington’s claims either were barred by the statute of limitations or failed on their merits. Because the district court erroneously found a lack of genuine dispute of material fact regarding Codrington’s fabrication- of-evidence claim, we reverse on that claim. Consequently, we vacate the district court’s derivative judgment in favor of defendants on Codrington’s claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and remand for further proceedings. As for all other claims, we affirm.

Attachments: