Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_17-cv-00461/USCOURTS-ared-4_17-cv-00461-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

CEDRICK SIMPSON, SR. 

v. No. 4:17-cv-461-DPM 

GREG SIEGLER, Individually 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFF 

DEFENDANT 

Cedrick Simpson believes in his bones that he was unjustly 

prosecuted for the 1997 murder of a grocery store manager. The jury 

acquitted him after brief deliberation. And Simpson has pursued 

litigation against the Little Rock police officers involved and others 

since. This Court resolved most of his federal claims against him in 

NQ 4:14-cv-165-DPM, see Order NQ 69, and the Court of Appeals 

affirmed. 694 F. App'x. 468 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). After screening, 

and a partly successful motion to dismiss in this, his most recent case, 

one claim against one defendant went forward for a decision on the 

merits: did Detective Greg Siegler conspire with his supervisor and a 

deputy prosecutor to violate Simpson's rights to due process and a fair 

trial by withholding exculpatory evidence? NQ 3, 26 & 46 (prior orders 

and amended complaint). 

Detective Siegler is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this 

remaining claim. Bedford v. Doe, 880 F.3d 993, 996-97 (8th Cir. 2018). 

The parties agree on most of the material facts. NQ 58. Where Simpson 

Case 4:17-cv-00461-DPM Document 65 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 3
disagrees, he rests on allegations and beliefs, not evidence of record. In 

sum, taking the record where genuinely disputed in Simpson's favor, 

insufficient evidence exists for a jury to reasonably conclude that there 

was a conspiracy against him. Helmig v. Fowler, 828 F.3d 755, 763 

(8th Cir. 2016). 

A first difficulty for Simpson, as Siegler emphasizes, is that the 

merits about the evidence handling and the trial's fairness have already 

been adjudicated against Simpson. Second, the material facts are 

against him. Simpson agrees that Siegler wasn't involved in the initial 

murder investigation, which occurred more than two decades ago. He 

agrees about Siegler' s role in the cold case investigation: Siegler and his 

supervisor reviewed and discussed the case file, and presented their 

conclusions to the deputy prosecutor. The mistaken destruction of the 

hat and bandana was ventilated. It's certainly true, as Simpson 

emphasizes, that Siegler' s affidavit did not tell the whole story about 

Simpson's many statements, recantations, and variations about the 

murder. But all this was either covered at trial or in the first federal 

case. Simpson has not come forward with evidence sufficient to 

support a verdict that Siegler - aiming to violate Simpson's due process 

rights and deprive him of a fair trial-agreed and acted with his 

supervisor, the deputy prosecutor, or both toward that end. 

"Speculation and conjecture are not enough to prove that a conspiracy 

exist[ed]." Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1206 (8th Cir. 1999). 

-2-

Case 4:17-cv-00461-DPM Document 65 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 3
And mistakes do not add up to an intentional plot to violate the 

Constitution. 

* * * 

Motion for summary judgment, NQ 50, granted. 

So Ordered. 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-3-

Case 4:17-cv-00461-DPM Document 65 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 3