Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04016/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S.

Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4016

___________

John Miles, Sr. *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Sue Dosal, Mark Thompson, *

Lynn Lahd, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 5, 2007

Filed: March 12, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Miles appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in

this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Miles alleged that a jury questionnaire used by

Hennepin County contained an “impermissible race factor,” thereby causing AfricanAmericans to be disproportionately underrepresented on and systematically excluded

from grand and petit juries, in violation of his and other African-Americans’ equal

Appellate Case: 05-4016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2007 Entry ID: 3287110
-2-

protection rights. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district

court that, while equal opportunity to serve on juries remains an important right, the

evidence in this case did not establish a prima facie case for a jury-selection equal

protection claim. Specifically, as explained in detail in the magistrate judge’s

comprehensive report, which the district court adopted, the undisputed evidence did

not show that African-Americans were substantially underrepresented in jury pools

over a significant period of time, or that the random juror selection process in

Hennepin County is susceptible of abuse or not racially neutral. Indeed, the record

evidence supports the contrary conclusion. See Floyd v. Garrison, 996 F.2d 947, 949

(8th Cir. 1993) (elements of prima facie case). We also conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Miles’s discovery request. See Robinson v.

Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (reversal of denial of motion to compel

discovery is warranted only if ruling amounted to gross abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2007 Entry ID: 3287110