Opinion

Clem v. Counts

Court
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Filed
Oct 15, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.2%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

NEIL CLEM PLAINTIFF

REG. #25946-009

Vv. No. 4:22-cv-195-DPM

ANTHONY COUNTS and

HOLDEN LESTER DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Officers Counts and Lester have moved for summary judgment,

asserting qualified immunity. Clem hasn’t responded. The material

facts stated by Counts and Lester, Doc. 39 & 44, are therefore deemed

admitted. LOCAL RULE 56.1(c). The Court has otherwise taken the

record in the light most favorable to Clem. Oglesby v. Lesan,

929 F.3d 526, 531-32 (8th Cir. 2019).

Based on the undisputed facts of record, officers Counts and

Lester had probable cause to stop Clem’s vehicle. Johnson v. Crooks,

326 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 2003). They didn’t violate his constitutional

rights when they searched him, because he was a probationer subject

to a search waiver. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006). And

they had probable cause to arrest him after field-testing the dark, sticky,

vinegar-smelling substance they found on him. New v. Denver,

787 F.3d 895, 899 (8th Cir. 2015). Even though the result of the field test

was mistaken, and the substance turned out not to be heroin, the legal

analysis on probable cause in the moment remains the same. Clem’s

Fourth Amendment claims therefore fail as a matter of law. Ibid. And

his Fifth Amendment due process claims fail because neither Counts

nor Lester were federal officials. Barnes v. City of Omaha, 574 F.3d 1003,

1005 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009). Because the officers didn’t violate Clem’s

clearly established constitutional rights, they’re entitled to qualified

immunity. New, 787 F.3d at 899.

In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clem’s state law claims.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1040-41

(8th Cir. 2020).

Motions for summary judgment, Doc. 37 & 42, granted as

specified and denied without prejudice on the state law claims.

Judgment will issue.

So Ordered.

_ endl

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

15 Octvber roay

-2-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.