Former university soccer coach’s lawsuit after charges dropped fails

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court Monday that a lawsuit brought by a former soccer coach at Oakland City University against an arresting officer should be dismissed for being time-barred. Christian Serino alleged his constitutional rights were violated and multiple state-law torts were committed after trespass and resisting law enforcement charges against him were dropped.

Serino was arrested by Oakland City Chief of Police Alec Hensley in September 2008 after Serino was told by the university that he was suspended. The charges were eventually dismissed. Serino filed his lawsuit in March 2012 alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution in violation of the U.S. Constitution. He also included Indiana tort claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The District Court granted Hensley’s and the police department’s motion to dismiss, finding his claims to be time-barred or barred under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The 7th Circuit affirmed in Christian Serino v. Alec Hensley and City of Oakland City, Indiana, 13-1058. Federal and state law requires Serino to have brought his claims for false arrest by Sept. 15, 2010, two years after his arraignment. Thus, these claims are untimely.

The judges agreed with the District Court that Serino did not present a cognizable Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, but for different reasons. The District Court dismissed on the ground that Indiana already provides a remedy for Serino’s harm; but his claim failed before the 7th Circuit because he did not state a constitutional violation independent of the alleged wrongful arrest, Judge Joel Flaum wrote.

The judges also upheld the finding that the state-law malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims should be dismissed on grounds of Hensley’s immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.