This case, in contrast, is not “close to the line.” In his complaint, Smith mentions false arrest only twice, in paragraphs twelve (“[W]ithout legal or factual justification of any kind, Defendant Plati caused Plaintiff Smith to be arrested for ‘trespassing’ in a public place in the University's Office of Media Relations.”) and seventeen (“Those damages specifically include ... those attributable to his own work, incurred by Plaintiff Smith in response to the arrest and order of exclusion caused by Plati.”). These two references are not sufficient to sustain the requirements for an unconstitutional detention under
§ 1983. They are far sparser and more conclusory than those made in
Lessman, where this court said the allegations were “close,” yet ultimately sufficient to withstand dismissal. For example, Smith did not allege that he had been detained for a substantial period of time, handcuffed or otherwise restrained, physically assaulted by an officer, or confined in a jail or other room.
Even granting Smith's assertion, as we must on appeal from a motion to dismiss, that he was “arrested,” we believe Smith has not alleged enough facts to state a
§ 1983 claim for deprivation of liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.