Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03439/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03439-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3439

___________

Janet Wilson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Boone County, Arkansas; Danny *

Hickman, Individually and in his * [UNPUBLISHED]

official capacity as Boone County *

Sheriff; Mark Rupp, Individually *

and in his official capacity; David *

E. Lafferty, Individually and in his *

official capacity, *

*

Appellees, *

*

John Doe, 1; John Doe, 2; John Doe, *

3; John Doe, 4; John Doe, 5; John *

Doe, 6, Individually and in their *

official capacities, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2006

Filed: August 14, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-3439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2006 Entry ID: 2077909
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

2

On appeal Wilson has waived her remaining claims. See Watson v. O’Neill,

365 F.3d 609, 614 n.4 (8th Cir. 2004).

-2-

Janet Wilson (Wilson) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Wilson sued Boone County, Arkansas

(County); County Sheriff Danny Hickman (Hickman) and Police Captain Mark Rupp

(Rupp); and Arkansas State Police Officer David Lafferty (Lafferty) for Fourth, Fifth,

and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and for malicious prosecution, arising from

an affidavit of probable cause which resulted in a warrant for her arrest on capital

murder charges that were later dismissed.2

 We review de novo the district court’s

grant of summary judgment, viewing the record in a light most favorable to Wilson.

See Turpin v. County of Rock, 262 F.3d 779, 783 (8th Cir. 2001).

For the reasons explained by the district court, we agree with the court that the

record did not establish trialworthy issues as to (1) Hickman’s personal involvement

in the preparation and presentation of the affidavit, see Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d

1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996) (supervisory liability under § 1983); (2) Rupp’s and

Lafferty’s entitlement to qualified immunity on the individual-capacity claims against

them, see Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986) (question is whether reasonably

well-trained officer in petitioner’s position would have known that his affidavit failed

to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for warrant); Turpin,

262 F.3d at 783 (two-step analysis in qualified immunity determination); and (3) the

constitutionality of the County policy Wilson challenged, see Monell v. NY City

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978) (local government’s § 1983

liability).

Appellate Case: 05-3439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2006 Entry ID: 2077909
-3-

We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law malicious-prosecution claim.

See Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006). 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3439 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2006 Entry ID: 2077909