July 9, 2014). B. Procedural History 1. The First Appeal Sutton sued Martin, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the Kroger Company, John Szcerbiak, and John Doe Security Company, alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as state-law claims of false arrest and false imprisonment.’ Martin moved to dismiss based, in part, on qualified immunity. The district court refused to dismiss Sutton’s Fourth Amendment claim and he filed an interlocutory appeal. This court affirmed the denial of Martin’s motion to dismiss, for failure to state a claim, but we also substantially narrowed the scope of the Fourth Amendment claim against Martin. Sutton v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 700 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). We first concluded that Martin’s initial
holding that qualified immunity applies only if an officer had arguable probable cause to arrest recognizing that an immigration arrest and detention needs to be supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion holding that sutton failed to state a claim that officer martin lacked reasonable suspicion required to detain sutton during the initial contact and questioning sutton sufficiently alleged that martin detained him beyond the scope of the initial detention szcerbiaks identification of sutton as the shoplifter provided probable cause to arrest but sutton adequately pleaded that he was arrested without probable cause and martin was not entitled to qualified immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that a state courts finding that the prosecutor did not have probable cause to go forward with the charges did not necessarily mean that probable cause to make the initial arrest was lacking