Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03362/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03362-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pat Garrett
Appellee
Bob Parish
Appellee
Frank Robinson
Appellant
White County
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3362

___________

Frank Robinson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

White County, Arkansas; Bob Parish, *

individually and in his official capacity *

as County Judge of White County, *

Arkansas; Pat Garrett, individually and *

in his official capacity as Sheriff of *

White County, Arkansas, *

*

Appellees. *

__________

Submitted: July 10, 2006

Filed: August 23, 2006 

___________

Before WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,1

 District

Judge.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Frank Robinson (Robinson) filed a petition for rehearing and clarification in

this case, urging this court to reverse the district court’s dismissal of Robinson’s state

Appellate Case: 05-3362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081335
-2-

law claims against White County, Arkansas (White County), and Judge Bob Parish

(Judge Parish). We grant the petition for rehearing, reverse the district court’s

dismissal of Robinson’s state law claims against White County and Judge Parish, and

remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our

opinion.

I. DISCUSSION

In his complaint, Robinson alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as

six pendent state law claims against White County, Judge Parish, and Sheriff Pat

Garrett (Sheriff Garrett) (collectively, the defendants). Robinson’s state law claims

alleged a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, false arrest or false

imprisonment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, interference with a contractual

relationship or business expectancy, and outrage. In moving for summary judgment

in the district court, the defendants did not address the state law claims in detail, but

merely stated that since Robinson’s arrest is lawful, “any alleged ulterior purposes . . .

[and the state law] claims are irrelevant.” Noting the defendants made “no effort in

their [summary judgment] motion to outline the elements for [Robinson’s] nonconstitutional claims” beyond contending the arrest was lawful, the district court

denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion in its entirety. The defendants then

moved for reconsideration of the district court’s order and filed an amended summary

judgment motion based on qualified immunity. Without any discussion or analysis

of the state law claims, the district court entered summary judgment in the defendants’

favor and dismissed Robinson’s entire complaint with prejudice. 

Robinson appealed. In our previous opinion, with regard to Robinson’s state

law claims, we concluded the defendants “failed to identify any grounds beyond

qualified immunity demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.”

Robinson v. White County, Ark., 452 F.3d 706, 714 (8th Cir. 2006). Because we held

Sheriff Garrett was not entitled to qualified immunity for Robinson’s unlawful arrest,

we reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Sheriff Garrett

on Robinson’s state law claims. Id. However, we affirmed the district court’s order

Appellate Case: 05-3362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081335
-3-

granting summary judgment to Judge Parish, and did not analyze Robinson’s state law

claims against White County. Id.

Upon reexamination of our prior opinion, we now reverse the district court’s

dismissal of the state law claims against all of the defendants. It is well settled “[t]he

party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds demonstrating the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Urihen v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 346

F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323

(1986)). The defendants’ failure to do so, coupled with the district court’s failure to

articulate its basis for dismissing the state law claims, persuades us summary

judgment on the state law claims is inappropriate on this record.

Thus, the state law claims remain viable against White County. Because Sheriff

Garrett is an employee of White County, and we denied summary judgment to Sheriff

Garrett, White County may be subject to suit under the state law claims for Sheriff

Garrett’s conduct. The state law claims also remain viable against Judge Parish. In

our previous opinion, we dismissed the state law claims against Judge Parish,

concluding he had no power to participate in an arrest and thus did not undertake any

unlawful act toward Robinson. However, some of Robinson’s state law claims may

not depend on whether Judge Parish had the authority to participate in an arrest. In

addition, we reiterate the defendants’ failure to demonstrate the absence of genuine

issues of material fact on Robinson’s state law claims renders summary judgment

inappropriate. 

II. CONCLUSION

We grant rehearing, and reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing

Robinson’s state law claims against White County and Judge Parish. The portion of

our opinion and judgment filed on July 3, 2006, affirming the dismissal of the state

law claims is vacated. We otherwise affirm our earlier opinion, and remand to the

district court for further proceedings on (1) Robinson’s individual capacity section

Appellate Case: 05-3362 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081335
-4-

1983 claims against Sheriff Garrett, and (2) Robinson’s state law claims against White

County, Judge Parish, and Sheriff Garrett.

___________________________

 

Appellate Case: 05-3362 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/23/2006 Entry ID: 2081335