The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Covington Police Department and multiple officers in a federal civil rights lawsuit arising from a late-night hotel incident that resulted in arrests and alleged excessive force.
In *Anthony Camarca v. City of Covington Police Department* (6th Cir. 2026), the appeals court upheld the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky's decision to grant summary judgment to all defendants in the case filed by Anthony Camarca against the police department and five individual officers.
The incident occurred in the early morning hours of approximately 3:30 a.m. following a family wedding reception. According to court documents, Anthony Camarca, his wife Sara, and several other wedding guests continued their celebration late into the night before returning to their hotel. The group gathered in the hotel lobby, where court records indicate several party members were intoxicated.
The situation escalated when a physical altercation broke out between Sara Camarca and her sister in the hotel lobby. The disturbance prompted hotel staff to contact 911, leading to the arrival of Covington police officers. What followed was described by the court as a police altercation that resulted in multiple arrests and an injury to Anthony Camarca during what officers characterized as their struggle to subdue him.
The named defendants in the lawsuit included the City of Covington Police Department and five individual officers: Officer Ross Woodward, Officer Robert Christen, Officer Bradley Morris, Officer Samuel Mathews, and Sergeant Michael Gilliland. Camarca brought claims under both federal constitutional law and state law against the defendants.
Circuit Judge Hermandorfer, writing for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Cole and Mathis, provided a brief overview of the facts leading to the litigation. The court noted that the late-night celebration had continued well past the wedding reception, with the group's condition deteriorating as the evening progressed.
The district court had granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding in favor of the police department and individual officers on all claims. Summary judgment is granted when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This procedural ruling suggests the district court found that even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Camarca, the defendants were entitled to prevail on the legal claims.
While the published opinion does not detail the specific constitutional claims raised by Camarca, civil rights lawsuits against police departments and officers typically involve allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for violations of their constitutional rights. Common claims in such cases include excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, and municipal liability claims against the police department.
The Sixth Circuit's affirmance of the summary judgment indicates the appeals court found no error in the district court's legal analysis or factual determinations. The court's decision to affirm suggests that either the defendants' actions were legally justified under the circumstances, or that Camarca failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claims.
The opinion is marked as "not recommended for publication," indicating it will not serve as binding precedent in future cases. This designation is typically used for routine decisions that do not establish new legal principles or clarify existing law. However, the decision remains significant for the parties involved and provides insight into how federal courts evaluate police conduct in situations involving intoxicated individuals and public disturbances.
The case highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in police misconduct litigation, where qualified immunity doctrine and other legal protections often favor law enforcement defendants. The summary judgment ruling suggests the court found the officers' actions were either objectively reasonable under the circumstances or that Camarca could not establish the elements necessary for his claims.
For the City of Covington Police Department, the favorable ruling validates their officers' handling of what appears to have been a difficult late-night situation involving intoxicated individuals and a physical altercation. The decision also demonstrates the importance of proper police procedures and documentation in defending against subsequent litigation.
The Sixth Circuit's decision represents the final resolution of Camarca's federal court challenge, as the court affirmed the district court's complete dismissal of the case. While Camarca could potentially seek review by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari, such review is discretionary and rarely granted in routine civil rights cases.
This case serves as a reminder of the legal complexities surrounding police interactions with the public, particularly in situations involving alcohol, public disturbances, and the use of force to effect arrests. The outcome underscores the substantial burden plaintiffs face in successfully challenging police conduct in federal court.