Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_13-cv-00251/USCOURTS-ared-3_13-cv-00251-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

GLAND ELLIOTT PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 3:13-cv-251-DPM 

CHRISTOPHER ELLIS DEFENDANT 

ORDER 

1. After this Court screened Gland Elliott's amended complaint and 

supplement, NQ 14,* Elliott filed an" Addendum Complaint" about a March 

2014 arrest. NQ 24. The Court must screen this addendum too. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A. As supplemented, Elliott's complaint states Fourth Amendment 

claims for unlawful arrest on two occasions: February 2013 and March 2014. 

Elliott also states a claim that the March 2014 arrest was retaliation for filing 

this lawsuit. The remainder of Elliott's pleadings fail to state a claim and will 

be dismissed without prejudice. 

2. Osceola police sergeant Christopher Ellis moves for summary 

judgment on Elliott's unlawful arrest and retaliation claims. NQ 42. These 

*The Court's screening Order dismissed Elliott's claims related to "his 

August 2013 arrest[.]" NQ 14 at 1. To clarify, the formal charges were filed 

in August of 2013. NQ 13 at 2. But the alleged offense occurred in late July 

of that year. Ibid. 

Case 3:13-cv-00251-DPM Document 56 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3
claims fail if Ellis had at least arguable probable cause for each arrest. 

Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 891 (8th Cir. 2015); Chevallier v. Hand, 722 

F.3d 1101, 1104 (8th Cir. 2013). He did. An eyewitness identification and 

Sergeant Ellis's review of surveillance video provided probable cause for the 

February 2013 arrest. And officers' locating a substance that field-tested 

positive for cocaine gave probable cause for the March 2014 arrest. Further, 

the Court sees no constitutional violation in the search of Elliott's home 

because he was on probation. ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-93-106. And to the extent 

Elliott contests his pre-search detention, Sergeant Ellis is entitled to qualified 

immunity. Klingler v. United States, 409 F.2d 299, 303 (8th Cir. 1969). 

Elliott's conclusory responses, Ng 46-Ng 49 & NQ 54-55, don't create a 

genuine jury issue. FED. R. Crv. P. 56( a), (c)(1) & (e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Sergeant Ellis is therefore entitled to summary 

judgment on Elliott's wrongful-arrest and retaliation claims. Those claims 

will be dismissed with prejudice. 

3. A final clarification. This Court's 13 June 2014 Order stated that 

Elliott's claims against the City of Osceola would be dismissed with prejudice. 

Because the dismissal is for failure to state a claim, however, the Court 

-2-

Case 3:13-cv-00251-DPM Document 56 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 3
concludes that Elliott's claims against the City should be dismissed without 

prejudice. Cf Larson v. Stow, 36 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). 

*** 

Motion for summary judgment, Ng 42, granted. Cross-motion, Ng 46, 

denied. 

So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall Jf 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 3:13-cv-00251-DPM Document 56 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3