Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00706/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00706-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Gibson
Defendant
Jeff Moore
Plaintiff
Matt Raeburn
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

MATT RAEBURN and JEFF MOORE 

v. No. 4:24-cv-706-DPM 

JAMES GIBSON, in his Individual and 

Official Capacity as a Police Officer for 

the City of Vilonia, Arkansas 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFFS 

DEFENDANT 

This sequel lawsuit raises questions about pleading and removal. 

Officer Gibson removed this latest iteration of the case here; Raeburn 

and Moore move to remand. The procedural history is important. 

* 

After being arrested at his child's baseball game in Vilonia, 

Raeburn sued Officer Gibson in this Court, making federal and state 

claims. No. 4:18-cv-374-DPM (Raeburn 1). Among his federal claims 

were excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and failure 

to train (against Vilonia, through Officer Gibson in his official capacity) 

based on violations of the First Amendment. Speaking through me, this 

Court granted summary judgment on all federal claims and declined to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rae burn' s state law claims. 

Doc. 52 in Raeburn I. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 2021 WL 3871916 

(8th Cir. 2021) (unpublished per curiam). 

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 1 of 8
Raeburn then refiled his case in Faulkner County Circuit Court. 

This was in November 2021, a month after the Court of Appeals' 

decision. He explained his case in the first few paragraphs of his state 

court complaint. "This is in action to for assault, battery, abuse of 

process, and malicious prosecution." Complaint at 1, No. 23CV-21-1443 

(Faulkner Cnty. 2021) (Raeburn II).* He also pleaded the background. 

"Plaintiff previously brought this action in the United States District 

Court. The Court granted summary judgment on federal claims and 

denied supplemental jurisdiction on remaining state law claims. 

The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice." Ibid. 

Rae burn' s general allegations of fact were substantially similar -

though a reference to the First Amendment was removed, along with a 

few other facts. Compare Doc. 1 at 2 in Raeburn I, with Complaint at 2 

in Raeburn II. Count one claimed assault and battery. Gone were the 

references to the Fourth Amendment and excessive force. Count two 

claimed malicious prosecution and abuse of process. These allegations 

were identical to those in Rae burn' s federal case. He pleaded that 

Officer Gibson arrested him without probable cause. He "took these 

actions because he did not know better. The City had failed to train 

[Officer Gibson] in the appropriate use of force and the appropriate 

* The state court filings are available on the Arkansas Judiciary' s 

website (https:/ / caseinfo.arcourts.gov / opad). Gibson also attached 

them to his notice of removal in this case, Doc. 1. 

-2-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 8
response to protected speech under the Arkansas Constitution and the 

First Amendment to the Federal Constitution." Compare Doc. 1 at 4 

in Raeburn I, with Complaint at 3 in Raeburn II. Officer Gibson answered 

but did not remove the refiled case. 

Moore and Officer Gibson had a similar fraught encounter at a 

soccer game. After Moore was found not guilty of all criminal charges, 

he too sued Officer Gibson here. No. 4:19-cv-51-BRW. His complaint 

gave more factual details about his run-in with Officer Gibson than 

Rae burn' s did about his encounter. Moore's federal and state claims 

were similar: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure), 

First Amendment (retaliatory arrest and failure to train), and state law 

claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Doc. 1 at 4-6 

in 4:19-cv-51-BRW. He did not allege excessive force. After a nonsuit, 

and engaging new counsel (Rae burn' s lawyers), his refiled case was 

assigned to Chief Judge Baker. Rae burn' s lawyers now represented 

Moore. In due course she granted summary judgment on all Moore's 

federal claims, dismissing his state claims without prejudice. Doc. 40 

in No. 4:20-cv-258-DPM. After Chief Judge Baker entered Judgment, 

this case was reassigned to me. I denied a motion to reconsider. 

No appeal was taken. 

Moore then joined Rae burn' s state case by way of an amended 

complaint. The detailed facts about the Moore/ Officer Gibson 

encounter were added. The jurisdictional pleading remained the same: 

-3-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 3 of 8
four state law claims; prior federal cases; federal claims rejected on 

summary judgment; and state claims dismissed without prejudice. 

The same state claims were reasserted in two counts: (1) assault and 

battery; plus (2) malicious prosecution and abuse of process. And the 

same explanation was pleaded for Officer Gibson's actions: "he did not 

know better" because Vilonia hadn't trained him about appropriate 

force or "the appropriate response to protected speech under the 

Arkansas Constitution and the First Amendment to the Federal 

Constitution." Amended Complaint at 7 in Raeburn II. Officer Gibson 

answered. He did not remove the case then, either. This was in 

October 2022, about a year after Raeburn had refiled. 

Almost two years later, in August 2024, Raeburn and Moore 

amended their complaint. Now they began with different words. 

"This is an action to address each Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights 

to be free from search and seizure under the United States Constitution, 

as well as the Arkansas Constitution. Plaintiffs' State claims include 

assault, battery, and violation of the rights granted each Plaintiff under 

Article II to the Arkansas Constitution." Second Amended Complaint at 1 

in Rae burn II. This was a reference to the State Constitution's 

Declaration of Rights, which includes First and Fourth Amendment 

analogs. Count one of their second amended complaint explicitly 

stated Fourth Amendment claims (arrest without probable cause, 

excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure), as well as assault and 

-4-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 4 of 8
battery. Second Amended Complaint at 2 in Raeburn II. Raeburn and 

Moore also expanded count two to make clear First Amendment claims 

(retaliatory arrest and failure to train), echoing Arkansas constitutional 

claims, plus malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Second 

Amended Complaint at 3 in Raeburn II. The second amended complaint 

looked much like a combined version of Rae burn' s and Moore's mixed 

federal/ state claims originally asserted in their federal cases. This time 

Officer Gibson answered and removed the case - Raeburn II - here. 

Raeburn and Gibson seek remand, arguing that a federal question 

has been in the refiled case from the beginning. A First Amendment 

claim was there, they say in November 2021, when Raeburn refiled, 

and it was there in October 2022 when Moore came in by amendment. 

Gibson counters that no federal question was presented until the bright 

colors provided in the second amended complaint. 

* 

The refiled case was not removable until the second amended 

complaint. 

First, consider context. All the prior pleadings began by saying 

that the federal claims had failed on summary judgment and only the 

state claims remained alive. They also said that Raeburn and Moore 

asserted four state law claims, not a federal claim. 

Second, consider the First Amendment reference. It's buried. 

Pleading is about giving fair notice, not a game of hide and seek. 

-5-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 5 of 8
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,392 (1987). A reasonable reader 

could infer that this identical sentence was simply a holdover, 

something inadvertently left in when the case was refiled. After all, 

this Court had granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs' respective 

federal claims against Vilonia for failure to train. Alternatively, if the 

reference was intentional, then it could reasonably be read as an 

explanation for Officer Gibson's alleged malicious prosecution and 

abuse of process, rather than a federal claim. The procedural history 

and the words of their state pleadings undermine Rae burn' s and 

Moore's argument that they made a First Amendment claim from the 

get-go. 

Third, if the lack of training/First Amendment training allegation 

was intended to explain why the prosecutions were malicious and 

abusive, then it presented a Grable situation: an embedded federal 

issue. Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & 

Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005). Viewed in this light, 

"the question is, does a state-law claim necessarily raise a stated federal 

issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may 

entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of 

federal and state judicial responsibilities." 545 U.S. at 314. 

Rae burn' s and Moore's First Amendment reference does not 

satisfy this standard. To begin, the constitutional adequacy of Vilonia' s 

training about citizen speech is of course a First Amendment matter: 

-6-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 6 of 8
Citizens have the right to express themselves vigorously, even 

vulgarly, to police officers. Compare Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 

3 F.4th 1017, 1022 (8th Cir. 2021). But, again, this Court had already 

rejected the plaintiffs' failure to train claims because Officer Gibson 

didn't violate the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment issue had 

been addressed, directly as to Moore and indirectly as to Raeburn; 

this is not the stuff of an actual dispute. Next, any remaining issue is a 

side point rather than a substantial one. The quality of Vilonia' s First 

Amendment training does not make or break Rae burn' s and Moore's 

state law claims. These prosecutions may or may not have been 

malicious or abusive whether the City's training was adequate or not. 

Compare Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., 953 F.3d 519 

(8th Cir. 2020) (Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act and related regulations 

permeated and could determine state law claims). Last, the 

federal/ state balance of court business. If plaintiffs' argument is 

correct, then every case asserting a state tort claim against a public 

official and involving some strong words spoken by a citizen arises 

under federal law. To state that argument reveals its breadth and 

novelty. In Justice Souter' s phrase, the" disruptive portent" is too great. 

Grable, 545 U.S. at 314. The Supreme Court has not "treated 'federal 

issue' as a password opening federal courts to any state action 

embracing a point of federal law." Ibid. 

-7-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 7 of 8
* 

Rae burn' s and Moore's second amended complaint raises Fourth 

and First Amendment claims. It does so unequivocally and 

unmistakably. (Why it did so, and whether those claims have any life 

in them, given this Court's earlier rulings, are important questions for 

another day.) The second amended complaint made the case 

removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 & 1441(a). The earlier pleadings did not. 

Motion to remand, Doc. 6, denied. 

So Ordered. 

(/ 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-8-

Case 4:24-cv-00706-DPM Document 15 Filed 12/19/24 Page 8 of 8