Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01848/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01848-0/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. 06-1848

___________

Robert Lee Bailey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Sgt. Andrew Schmidt; Officer *

Garmen; E.R.U. Team, led by Sgt. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Young; Officer Blauert; Unknown *

Officers; Sheriff Patrick McGowan; *

Unknown Animal Control Officer; *

David S. Nygren, ATF Special Agent; *

David Boe, ATF Special Agent; Rapp, *

FBI Special Agent; One Unknown *

Agent, ATF, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2007

Filed: May 29, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-1848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313616
1

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

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan

Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

2

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971).

-2-

Federal inmate Robert Lee Bailey appeals the judgment the district court1

entered in the civil rights action he brought against federal agents, a sheriff, and City

of Minneapolis law enforcement officers. We affirm.

City police, accompanied by federal agents, searched Bailey’s residence

pursuant to a warrant for evidence of prostitution, drugs, and guns. Based in part on

evidence obtained from the search, Bailey was indicted on federal charges of being

a felon in possession of a firearm and transporting individuals in interstate commerce

for purposes of promoting prostitution. While his criminal trial was pending, he filed

this action for damages against the officers involved in the search, claiming they

conducted a warrantless search of his residence, used excessive force in arresting him

and in killing his five pit bulls, and falsely arrested and detained him. He also claimed

the sheriff conspired to detain him on later-filed charges of threatening witnesses. 

Upon de novo review, see Walker v. Bonenberger, 438 F.3d 884, 888 (8th Cir.

2006) (summary judgment); Carter v. Arkansas, 392 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2004)

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal), we first agree with the district court that the

Bivens2

 claims against the federal defendants were subject to dismissal. Bailey made

no specific allegations as to how these defendants personally violated any of his

constitutional rights during the search, see Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d

35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (there is no respondeat superior liability under Bivens;

defendants are liable for their personal acts only), and his allegation that one agent

denied him medical care was conclusory, see id. at 37 (conclusory charge that

Appellate Case: 06-1848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313616
-3-

defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs did not

state Bivens claim). 

We also agree that the sheriff was entitled to summary judgment, as Bailey

offered no evidence to support his theory that the sheriff conspired with others to

detain him on false witness-tampering charges, see Henthorn v. Capital Commc’ns,

Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir. 2004) (mere allegations not supported with

specific facts are insufficient to establish material issue of fact and will not withstand

summary judgment motion), and the sheriff attested that he had no role whatsoever

in Bailey’s arrest on these charges or in any preceding investigation, see Ottman v.

City of Independence, 341 F.3d 751, 761 (8th Cir. 2003) (supervisory liability under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of federally protected right occurs when supervisor is

personally involved or when supervisor’s corrective inaction constitutes deliberate

indifference). Further, the sheriff’s or his subordinates’ alleged violation of jail

policies does not result in section 1983 liability. See Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d

427, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1997).

Summary judgment for the City defendants was likewise proper. We conclude

defendants were entitled to use some force under the circumstances: Bailey had

crawled out a bathroom window during the search, and the search was partly for guns.

See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395-96 (1989) (constitutionality of force used

depends upon facts and circumstances, including severity of crime at issue, whether

suspect posed immediate safety threat to officers or others, and whether suspect

actively resisted arrest or attempted to evade arrest by flight). Also, the medical

records (showing Bailey suffered a rib contusion and some facial bleeding) belied

Bailey’s allegations that he suffered significant injury from the officers’ actions. See

Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2006) (relatively minor scrapes and

bruises and temporary aggravation of shoulder problem were de minimis injuries and

supported conclusion that officer did not use excessive force). We further conclude

defendants did not act unreasonably in killing Bailey’s dogs, given the uncontested

Appellate Case: 06-1848 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313616
-4-

evidence that all of the dogs either advanced on or acted aggressively toward the

officers. See Altman v. City of High Point, 330 F.3d 194, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003)

(officer acted reasonably under circumstances in killing dog that had not attacked

anyone but had displayed aggressive behavior). Last, we conclude that defendants’

production of signed copies of the search warrant precluded Bailey’s claims of false

arrest and false detention. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144-46 (1979)

(plaintiff who was arrested pursuant to valid warrant and detained in jail for 3 days

despite his protests of mistaken identity did not state § 1983 claim).

We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Bailey’s three motions to amend,

for Bailey neglected to submit with his first two motions a proposed amended

complaint or to describe the substance of his amended claims; and amendment per the

third motion would likely have prejudiced defendants, resulted in additional

discovery, and delayed the proceedings. See Meehan v. United Consumers Club

Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913-14 (8th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion in

denying motion to amend where plaintiff failed to specify proposed new allegations);

Thompson-El v. Jones, 876 F.2d 66, 67-69 (8th Cir. 1989) (no abuse of discretion in

denying motion to amend where grant most likely would have necessitated additional

discovery and further delay). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district

court’s refusal to issue subpoenas, given Bailey’s failure to explain the relevance of

the requested witness testimony and documentary evidence. See United States v.

Oates, 173 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir. 1999) (to warrant issuance of subpoena, party must

show that subpoenaed document is relevant, is admissible, and has been requested

with adequate specificity); Williams v. Carter, 10 F.3d 563, 566 (8th Cir. 1993)

(decision to grant or deny subpoenas for indigent parties is within trial court’s

discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1848 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/29/2007 Entry ID: 3313616