Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03056/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03056-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3056

___________

Luwalhati Admana Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Deputy Sheriff Chris B. Williams; *

Deputy Sheriff Darren Morrow; Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sheriff Scott Hammerslea; Washington *

County Sheriff’s Office; Washington *

County, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 21, 2010

Filed: April 30, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out events in October 2005 and March

2006, Luwalhati Johnson appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of her claims against

the Washington County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office), its adverse grant of

summary judgment on her claims against the remaining defendants (hereinafter

Appellate Case: 09-3056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660184
-2-

defendants), and its denial of reconsideration of the summary judgment decision.

Johnson argues that the court erred by disregarding allegations in the complaint,

declining to consider her affidavit, and considering certain reports submitted in

support of defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Reviewing the court’s summary judgment decision de novo, see Johnson v.

Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we conclude that it was proper because

Johnson failed to establish a genuine dispute regarding the existence of probable cause

to support her arrest in October 2005, see Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-207(a)(7) (defining

disorderly conduct offense); Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d 306, 309 (8th Cir. 1987)

(describing circumstances where law-enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest

suspect without warrant), or regarding the constitutionality of defendants’ conduct

with respect to the March 2006 events, given the undisputed fact that a deputy sheriff

confiscated dogs from Johnson’s residence twice “on search warrants.” R. Doc. 39

¶ 30; Exh. 6 at ¶ 19. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (when motion for summary

judgment is properly made and supported, opposing party may not rely merely on

allegations or denials in its own pleadings; rather, response must set out specific facts

showing genuine issue for trial; if opposing party does not so respond, summary

judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party); Satcher v. Univ. of

Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Trustees, 558 F.3d 731, 734-35 (8th Cir. 2009) (it is not

district court’s responsibility to sift through record to see if, perhaps, there was issue

of fact); see also W.D. Ark. R. 56.1(a) (any party moving for summary judgment shall

annex to notice of motion a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts as

to which it contends there is no genuine issue to be tried), (b) (if nonmoving party

opposes motion, it shall file, in addition to any response and brief, a separate, short,

and concise statement of material facts as to which it contends genuine issue exists to

be tried), (c) (all material facts set forth in statement filed by moving party pursuant

to paragraph (a) shall be deemed admitted unless controverted by statement filed by

nonmoving party under paragraph (b)).

Appellate Case: 09-3056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660184
-3-

We further conclude that Johnson did not state a claim against defendants based

on her allegations of verbal abuse, see Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378

(8th Cir. 1992) (generally mere verbal threats made by state actor do not establish

cognizable claim under § 1983), an equal protection violation, see Creason v. City of

Washington, 435 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2006) (requirements to state equal protection

claim), or a conspiracy, see Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999) (to

prevail on conspiracy claim under § 1983 plaintiff must prove actual deprivation of

constitutional right). Thus, we also affirm the dismissal of the claims against the

Sheriff’s Office. See Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, Ark., 503 F.3d 667, 674 (8th

Cir. 2007) (county could not be held liable under § 1983 where no county defendant

was individually liable for underlying substantive claim); Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d

1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (dismissal may be affirmed on any basis supported by

record). 

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in declining to consider

Johnson’s affidavit and denying reconsideration of its summary judgment decision,

because the affidavit was filed out of time and Johnson did not comply with the

court’s order directing her to explain why she had not filed a timely response to the

summary judgment motion. See W.D. Ark. R. 7.2(b) (within 14 days from date copies

of motion and supporting papers have been served, any party opposing motion shall

serve and file with clerk concise statement in opposition to motion with supporting

authorities; for cause shown, court may by order shorten or lengthen time for filing

of responses); 56.1 (requirements set forth in local rule 7.2 apply to summary

judgment motions).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3056 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2010 Entry ID: 3660184