“Providing information to the police, responding to questions about a crime, and offering witness testimony at a criminal trail does not expose a private individual to liability for actions taken ‘under color of law.’”
How later courts described this case
- “Providing information to the police, responding to questions about a crime, and offering witness testimony at a criminal trail does not expose a private individual to liability for actions taken ‘under color of law.’”
- “[A] private party’s mere invocation of state legal procedures does not constitute state action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CODY EMMANUEL GARDNER PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05136-TLB-CDC
DETECTIVE BAILEY, Fayetteville
Police Department; and Claudia Doe DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a civil rights action filed by Cody Emmanuel Gardner (“Gardner”) pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Gardner contends his constitutional rights were violated when he was wrongfully
arrested and charged with criminal offenses arising out of his having done a favor for Defendant
Doe on April 14, 2024.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making a Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court for preservice screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen any complaint
in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2024, Gardner was attending a house party where he was introduced to
Defendant Doe who was a social media influencer. (ECF No. 1 at 4). Gardner was planning on
starting his own pod cast. Id. The two exchanged their personal information and engaged in
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
1
conversation for approximately forty-minutes. Id. Gardner says he was recording the party to
download to his media feed to the public for review and ratings. Id. at 4-5.
After Gardner finished recording, a friend, Ladarius Warren (“Warren”) informed him the
police were outside in connection with a theft. (ECF No. 1 at 5). The two began saying
goodnight to friends and were going to head to Gardner’s truck. Id. Defendant Doe approached
and asked if she could have a ride home. Id. The three went to the truck. Id. Gardner drove,
Warren was in the front passenger seat, and Defendant Doe in the back seat. Id. Gardner asked
for Defendant Doe’s address and she simply responded: University of Arkansas. Id. Gardner
says she did not recall her exact address which struck him as odd but he brushed it off. Id. at 7.
About this time, Gardner realized his cell phone was dead. (ECF No. 1 at 5). Gardner
then suggested they stop at Warren’s place, which was only ten minutes away, to charge their
phones. Id. at 7. Defendant Doe agreed. Id. When they arrived at Warren’s place, Gardner
told Defendant Doe she could take a seat by the television and he went upstairs to use the restroom.
Id. When he returned, Defendant Doe was asked Gardner to take her to Taco Bell while her phone
charged and then take her home afterwards. Id. Gardner refused. Id. Gardner indicates
Defendant Doe started talking about a friend of hers who had been raped at a party. Id. She also
indicated she did not like guns. Id. Gardner removed his handgun that had been on the fireplace
and put it in a bedroom at the back of the apartment. Id. To diffuse her anxiety, Gardner asked
Defendant Doe to step out of the apartment. Id.
When Warren went outside, he allegedly heard Defendant Doe speaking on her phone and
telling a friend that Gardner had asked her for money and sex. (ECF No. 1 at 7). Gardner says
Defendant Doe did not look up her address or call the police. Id. When Defendant Doe tried to
2
re-enter the apartment, Warren, and Gardner, both African American, while Defendant Doe
Caucasian, decided under the circumstances it was best if they spoke with her outside. Id.
Warren obtained the phone number for Defendant Doe’s friend and sent her a text with their
address so she could come and pick up Defendant Doe. Id.
A week later, Warren was called and asked to come to the police station to answer some
questions. (ECF No. 1 at 8). Warren refused. Sometime later, when the two were at Warren’s
apartment, Gardner noticed the police inspecting his truck. Id. When he went outside to inquire,
Gardner was arrested pursuant to a warrant. Id. He was transported to the Washington County
Detention Center where he remains incarcerated. Id.
As relief, Gardner seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (ECF No. 1 at 11). He
asks that a lien be placed against the Defendants’ real and personal property including bank
accounts, pensions, and life insurance policies. Id. Finally, Gardner seeks return of all his
property seized including his truck, keys, wallet, $780 in cash, Apple watch, gold earrings, and
shoes. Id.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be
false, or it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather
than to vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987);
3
In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we
hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is
discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe
the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). However, the complaint must still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Publicly available Arkansas court records2 establish that Gardner has been charged with
kidnapping, attempted rape, and aggravated assault. State v. Gardner, 72CR-24-926.3 The
criminal information indicates the crimes occurred on or about April 14, 2024, in Washington
County, Arkansas.
The docket sheet indicates Gardner is represented by a public defender. Gardner was
arraigned on May 20, 2024. His next court appearance will be for a status hearing on August 27,
2024, at 1:30 pm.
2 The Court may take judicial notice of public records. See e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville,
420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005).
3 Arkansas Case Information. https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/72CR-24-926 (last
visited July 29, 2024).
4
A. Claims against Defendant Doe
Based on the allegations of the Amended Complaint, Defendant Doe is a private individual
the alleged crime victim. A § 1983 complaint must allege that each defendant, acting under the
color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United
States Constitution or by federal law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A victim does
not act under color of law when reporting an alleged crime to police. See Youngblood v. Hy-Vee
Food Stores, Inc., 226 F.3d 851, 855 (8th Cir. 2001) (“[A] private party’s mere invocation of state
legal procedures does not constitute state action.”) (citations omitted); Moldowan v. City of
Warren, 578 F.3d 351, 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Providing information to the police, responding to
questions about a crime, and offering witness testimony at a criminal trail does not expose a private
individual to liability for actions taken ‘under color of law.’”) (citation omitted). Accordingly,
Gardner has failed to state a plausible claim under against Defendant Doe.
B. Claims of Wrongful Arrest and False Charges
Gardner contends he was wrongfully arrested on false charges arising out of the events of
April 14, 2024. Gardner alleges he was arrested on some unspecified date pursuant to a warrant.
An arrest warrant allows “a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable
cause to make an arrest or conduct a search.” Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212 (1983)
(citation omitted). Probable cause is not undermined “if the person arrested is later found
innocent.” Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1226 (8th Cir. 2013).
The Amended Complaint does not challenge the validity of the arrest warrant.
Furthermore, the criminal charges against Gardner are currently pending in the Washington
County Circuit Court.
5
Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts are required to abstain
from hearing cases when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates
important state interests, and when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the
federal questions presented.” Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller
v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996)). “If all three questions are answered affirmatively, a
federal court should abstain unless it detects ‘bad faith, harassment, or some extraordinary
circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.’” Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Ft. Smith,
Ark., 163 F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State
Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982)).
In this case, all three questions are answered affirmatively. There is an ongoing state
criminal case involving the events of April 14, 2024. Arkansas clearly has an important interest
in enforcing its criminal laws—particularly those involving crimes against persons. Additionally,
there are important interests in allowing the state to administer its own judicial system. Gardner
has not identified any barrier to his ability to raise his constitutional challenges in state court.
Gardner’s federal claims are intertwined with his state criminal case. Abstention is appropriate
on Fourth Amendment claims of wrongful arrest based on false charges.
In cases where damages are sought, the Eighth Circuit, following applicable Supreme
Court precedent, has emphasized that traditional abstention principles generally require a stay as
the appropriate mode of abstention rather than a dismissal. Night Clubs, Inc., 163 F. 3d at 481.
In Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996), the Court said:
In those cases in which we have applied traditional abstention principles to damages
actions, we have only permitted a federal court to withhold action until the state
proceedings have concluded, that is, we have permitted federal courts applying
abstention principles in damages actions to enter a stay, but we have not permitted
6
them to dismiss the action altogether.
Id. at 730.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that:
• All claims against Defendant Doe be dismissed for failure to state a plausible
claim. Defendant Doe should be terminated as a Defendant.
• The wrongful arrest on false charges claims against Defendant Bailey be
STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED pending the
resolution of Gardner’s state criminal case. Gardner will have thirty (30) days
after the final resolution of his pending criminal case to file a Motion to Reopen
this case. Upon notice filed by Defendant Bailey, the failure of Gardner to file
the Motion by the deadline will result in the summary dismissal of this case.
Status of Referral: The referral will terminate upon the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July 2024.
s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7