Bobbie Jo Horocofsky v. City of Lawrence, Kansas, et al.

Kansas City, Kansas, personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff on a civil rights claim.

Digested by: Kent Morlan

Bobbie Jo Horocofsky alleged that she was raped by a law-school classmate. But officers of the City of Lawrence Police Department (LPD) ended up investigating her for filing a false report, and she was charged on three counts of
making false accusations against the alleged rapist. After those charges were dismissed, Plaintiff sued LPD Officers Charles Cottengim and Kimberlee Nicholson (Defendants) and the City of Lawrence under federal civil-rights statutes and state law.1 Three years into the litigation, she also sought to add a claim that Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights by searching her phone.

* * *

When alleging claims under § 1983, “it is particularly important . . . that the complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her, as distinguished from collective allegations against the state.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, a complaint should avoid “the collective term ‘Defendants.’”

* * *

On a § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim the plaintiff must show that “(1) the
defendant caused the plaintiff’s continued confinement or prosecution; (2) the
original action terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) no probable cause supported
the arrest, confinement, or prosecution; (4) the defendant acted maliciously; and
(5) the plaintiff sustained damages.” Coones v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Unified
Gov’t of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, 166 F.4th 1, 25 (10th Cir. 2026) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The district court dismissed the claim on the first element,
holding that Plaintiff did not adequately allege causation. See Horocofsky, 2022 WL
1421554, at *24–26.

The district court dismissed all the claims and denied Plaintiff’s motion to add a Fourth Amendment claim.

The 10th Circuit affirmed the judgment below dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims. But
REVERSED the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the state-law
claims and REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.