Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01242/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01242-0/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. 16-1242

___________________________

Richard M. Elbert

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Kansas City, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri Police Department; Police

Officer Muhlbauer, in his individual and official capacity; Police Officer Enig, in

his individual and official capacity; Police Officer Campbell, in his individual and

official capacity; Police Officer Cote, in his individual and official capacity;

Police Officer Sanders, in his individual and official capacity; Police Officer

Hernandez, in his individual and official capacity; Police Officer Balsley, in his

individual and official capacity; Police Officer Johnson, Badge 2356, in his

individual and official capacity; Patrice Winston, City of KCMO Office of

Regulated Industries in her individual and official capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Jane Doe, City of KCMO Office of Regulated Industries

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, in their individual and official

capacities; Regina Wagner, City of KCMO Office of Regulated Industries in her

individual and official capacity; John Harbrucker, City of KCMO Office of

Regulated Industries in his individual and official capacity; Det. Robert Gibbs,

Kansas City Missouri Police Dept in his individual and official capacity; J.

Williamson, Kansas City Missouri Fire Marshal in his individual and official

capacity; Gary Majors, City of KCMO Office of Regulated Industries in his

individual and official capacity; Jim Ready, City of KCMO Office of Regulated

Industries in his individual and official capacity; KCMO Police Officers Does

1-10, in their individual and official capacities; KCMO Police Officers Does

Appellate Case: 16-1242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Entry ID: 4433978 
11-21, in their individual and official capacities; Robert Richardson, Kansas City

Missouri Fire Marshall, in his individual and official capacity; Assistant Chief Fire

Downing, Kansas City Missouri Fire Marshall, in his individual and official

capacity; Police Officer Pronske, in his individual and official capacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: August 1, 2016

Filed: August 4, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before, RILEY, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Elbert, a pro se appellant, appeals the district court's denial of his

1

motion for summary judgment, and the court's grant of summary judgment in favor

of the individual defendants, its dismissal of particular claims, and its denial of

Elbert's motion to amend the complaint. We affirm.

In November 2009, Elbert obtained a lease for the Kansas City properties at

issue in this matter. The premises served as Elbert's living quarters and, after Elbert

renovated the space with the help of friends and family, he opened the Kansas City

Apollo Country Club (the "Club"). As described by Elbert, he created a Club that

was a members-by-invitation only, non-profit organization that collectedmembership

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States DistrictJudge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Entry ID: 4433978 
dues that were used to purchase food and refreshments from a grocery store, pay for

utilities, renovations, rent, security and other personnel, and all other like expenses. 

Members were given poker chips upon payment of their dues, which they could then

exchange for alcoholic beverages or food at the Club. According to Elbert, the

operation was akin to friends putting money together to buy food and drink, rent a

motel room, and hire someone to prepare the food and serve drinks while the group

watches a football game. Elbert did not obtain any occupancy permit, never had a fire

inspection of the property, did not obtain a businesslicense from the City, did not pay

earnings taxes on membership dues, and did not report the earnings of people who

worked security or provided other services at the Club to the IRS or the City. The

Club became the subject of citizen complaints due to the late night hours and noise,

and officers and city employees investigated the late-night disturbances, the sale of

alcohol and food without a license, reports of assaults and gunfire, the indication of

the presence of drugs, and other similar issues on the property. After numerous

inspections and investigationsin 2010 and 2011, the owner of the premises contacted

Elbert and informed him that he would need to vacate the premises so that code

violations could be corrected. 

Elbert pursued the instant action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law,

alleging myriad allegations of specific misconduct by police officers and city

employees in their dealings with the operation of the Club on specific dates. The

district court initially dismissed several defendants and a number of deficient claims

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the alleged state law claims

were denied without prejudice. The district court narrowed the federal claims to

counts 2 through 5, which included complained-of conduct occurring on October 22,

2010; August 21, 2011; and December 10, 2011. On competing summary judgment

2

Elbert argues that the alleged misconduct of Defendant Harbrucker (an 2

employee with the city's Department ofRegulated Industries) on August 21, 2011, set

forth in count 4, should be included in the summary judgment analysis. We agree,

despite the district court's footnote reiterating that its March 25, 2013, order limited

-3-

Appellate Case: 16-1242 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Entry ID: 4433978 
motions, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers and city

defendants and dismissed the matter with prejudice. Having reviewed the record

submitted on appeal de novo, we affirm on the bases set forth in the district court's

reasoned opinion, including the court's constitutional analyses, the failure of Elbert

to show genuine issues of material facts on claims, the court's grant of qualified

immunity, its denial of Elbert's motion for leave to amend, and its decision not to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Gosiger, Inc.

v. Elliott Aviation, Inc., 823 F.3d 497, 501 (8th Cir. 2016) ("This court reviews de

novo a grant of summary judgment."); Ash v. Anderson Merchandisers, LLC, 799

F.3d 957, 962 (8th Cir. 2015) ("We 'review the district court's denial of [a plaintiff's]

motion for leave to amend for an abuse of discretion.'" (alteration in original)

(quoting Horras v. Am. Capital Strategies, Ltd., 729 F.3d 798, 804 (8th Cir. 2013))),

cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 804 (2016); Shultz v. Buchanan, No. 15-1854, 2016 WL

3902653, at *5 (8th Cir. July 19, 2016) (affirming that this court reviews a district

court's purely discretionary decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction for abuse of

discretion); 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

______________________________

review to counts 2 through 5 and alleged misconduct on October 22, 2010, and

December 10, 2011, only. Elbert accurately points out that Harbrucker was not

dismissed from the action in the court's March 25 order, and the August occurrence

is specifically enumerated in count 4, so there remains some ambiguity surrounding

the district court's narrowing of the issues to October 22, 2010, and December 10,

2011. Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 798 (8th Cir. 2010) (reiterating that pro se

pleadings are afforded a liberal construction). We also include in our de novo review

Elbert's false arrest and imprisonment claims stemming fromthe events on December

10, 2011, beyond the actions of Detective Gibbs. Inclusion of the August 21, 2011,

and the false arrest and imprisonment allegations, however, does not alter the ultimate

resolution of the case. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 16-1242 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Entry ID: 4433978