# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 26 24

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mar k Well m an
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Ci ty of Je nn in gs , Mis so ur i

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t
St . Lou is Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee
Je ff Fu es ti ng
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t
Jo n B el m ar
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 0, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Ju ly 26, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

On Decem

be r 28 , 20 14 , th e St

. Lou is Co un ty P ol ic e were di sp at ch ed to th e ho m e of Mar k W el lm an aft er a 91 1 cal l in di cat ed W el lm an was su ic id al , in to xi cat ed , a n d arm ed

. W el lm an ag reed , aft er a co nv ers at io n wit h an of fic er, to vo lu n t a r i l y
co m m it hi m se lf. At th is po in t, th e po li ce se iz ed two fir earm s fro m hi s ho m e. Late r, th e po li ce rece iv ed a req ue st to ret ur n to W el lm an ’s ho m e an d r e t r i e v e ad di ti on al fir earm s. In to ta l, t he po li ce re ta in ed m or e th an twen ty firear m s fo r sa fek eep in g.

W he n a fir earm is se iz ed as a pa rt of a su ic id e in te rv en ti on in St

. Lou is Co un ty, th e po li ce ho ld th e weap on su bjec t to Sp eci al Ord er 11 -3 34

. The Sp e c i a l O r de r req ui res ei th er a writ of rep le vi n or le tt er fro m a tre at in g ps y ch ol og is t or ps y ch ia tri st be fo re a fir earm m ay be rel eas ed

. W el lm an di d no t at te m pt to ret rie ve hi s gu ns us in g th e p ro ced ur es ou tl in ed in th e Sp eci al Orde r.

In st ead , Well m an fil ed su it , a ll eg in g fiv e cl ai m s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d tw o p e n d a n t st at e la w cl ai m s an d se ek in g th e ret ur n of hi s fir earm s as well as
m on et ary da m ag es

. W el lm an an d Defen da nt s fil ed m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n in fav or of Defen da nt s. In a se pa rat e or de r, 1 by co ns en t of th e pa rti es , th e di st ric t co ur t ap pr ov ed th e ret ur n of W el lm an ’s fir earm s. W el lm an ap pe al s two of hi s § 19 83 cl ai m s, arg ui ng hi s Fo ur th an d Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht s were vi ol at ed be cau se (1 ) th e po li ce di d no t ha ve th e req ui si te co ns en t to se iz e th e fir earm s an d (2 ) th e ret en ti on of th e fir earm s co ns ti tu te d an un reas on ab le se iz ur e.

The Hon or ab le Ro dn ey W

. Si pp el , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-A f

t e r a care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd , vi ewin g th e fact s in th e li gh t mo s t fav or ab le to W el lma n, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t. See And rews v. Sch afer , 88 8 F.3 d 98 1, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). As th e di st ric t
co ur t no te d, W el lm an fa i l e d to av ai l hi m se lf of th e “ m ean in gf ul ” pr oc ed ur es
a v ai la bl e, whi ch wou ld ha ve al lo wed hi m to ret rie ve hi s fir earm s. Fi n d i n g n o
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t fo r th e re a so ns st at ed in it s de ci si on . See W ellm an v. St. Louis Cty ., 255 F. Supp. 3d 896 (E.D. Mo. 2017) ; 8 th Cir

. R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-