Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01807/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01807-0/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. 09-1807

___________

William Eugene Leventhal, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Sgt. Daniel Schaffer, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant, *

*

Lt. Jeff Ritzman; Unknown Employees *

in the Iowa State Patrol, Possibly *

Additionally Involved, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: February 11, 2010

Filed: February 17, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an action brought pro se by William Eugene Leventhal

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA), against employees of

the Iowa State Patrol, Sergeant Daniel Schaffer and Lieutenant Jeff Ritzman, arising

out of Leventhal’s arrest and handcuffing for the crime of disorderly conduct during

the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI). In ruling on the

Appellate Case: 09-1807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Entry ID: 3634758
1

The Honorable Mark Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Paul A. Zoss, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, the district court1

dismissed all claims against defendants except for Leventhal’s claim against Schaffer

under section 1983 for arresting him without probable cause. On that claim, the court

found a triable issue of fact and rejected Schaffer’s argument that he was, as a matter

of law, entitled to qualified immunity. See Leventhal v. Schaffer, 612 F. Supp. 2d

1026, 1042-46 (N.D. Iowa 2009). Schaffer now brings this interlocutory appeal.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we

affirm on the basis of the district court’s thorough opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We

overrule Leventhal’s objection to our deciding the case without oral argument, and we

deny his motion to supplement the record.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010 Entry ID: 3634758