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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 17 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mat th ew A. Sus ch an ke

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Tho m as Nesk e, in di vi du al ly; Bo ardof P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of S t. Lou is ; Be tt y e Bat tl e-Tu rn er, In he r of fic ia l capa ci ty as Pres id en t o f th e Bo ardof Po li ce Co m

m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s; Ric ha rdH. Gray , In h is off ic ia l cap aci ty as Vic e-Pr es id en t o f th e Bo ardof P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers of the Cit y

of S t. Lou is ; J erry L ee, Inhi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Pu rch as in g M em be r of th e Bo ardof Po li ce Co m

m is si on ers of the Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s; Fran ci s G. Sl ay , In h is off ic ia l cap aci ty as Ex- Offi ci o M em be r of th e Bo ardof P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers of t he Cit y of St. Lo ui s; Mi ch ael Gerd in e, In hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Treas ur er o f th e Bo ardof

Po li ce Co m

m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ 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 ctof M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Feb ru ary 21 , 20 13 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 26 , 20 13 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, ARNOLD, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

Mat th ew Su sc ha nk e ap pe al s th e di stric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s co m pl ai nt 1 br ou gh t un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d st at e la w. Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co urt th at Su sc ha nk e fai le d to st at e a se ct io n 19 83 cl ai m ag ai n s t Tho m as Nes ke fo r fal se arre st , se e Gari on is v. Newto n, 82 7 F.2 d 30 6, 31 0 (8 th Cir . 19 87 ) (p ers on who is alr ead y un de r arre stan d i n p ol ic e cu st od y can no t be

“ rearres te d” ), or fo r ei th er ex ces si ve fo rce or vi ol at io n of in ti m at e-as so ci at io n rig ht s,
se e Kin g v. Olm st ed Cn ty., 1 1 7 F

. 3 d 10 65 , 10 67 -6 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (m ere ve rb al th reat s ge ne ral ly do no t supp ort § 19 83 cl ai m). Th us , Su sc ha nk e fai le d to st at e si m il ar cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of St

. Lou is Bo ard of Po li ce Co m m is si on ers (Bo ard ). See Mo or e v. Ci ty of Des lo ge , M o

. , 6 4 7 F .3d 84 1, 84 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (m un ic ip al li ab il it y fo r fai lu re to tra in or supe rv is e can no t at ta ch un le ss in di vi du al li ab il it y is fir st fo un d on un de rlyin g subs ta nt iv e cl ai m); Mo y le v. And ers on , 57 1 F.3 d 81 4, 81 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (m

un ic ip al li ab il it y un de r § 19 83 requi res sh owi ng of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n pu rs ua nt to of

fic ia l cu st om , po li cy , or pr act ic e of go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty); Bro wn v. Fo rtn er, 51 8 F.3 d 55 2, 55 9 n.1 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 8 ) (§ 19 83 cl ai m s can no t be ba se d on res po nd eat supe rio r or vi cari ou s li ab il it y ). Hav in g pro pe rly di sm is se d th e fed eral cla im s, t he di stric t co urt d idno t abu se it s di sc ret io n in de cl in in g to ex erci se
supp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er Su sc ha nk e’s st at e-l aw fal se -impris on m en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t Nes ke an d t he Bo ard . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 67 (c)( 3)

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm , se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B, cl ari fy in g th at th e di sm is sa l of th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s is wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, se e Lab ic ka s v. Ark

. St at e Uni v., 78 F.3 d 33 3, 33 4- 35 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) (pe r cu ria m ).

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

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.
-2

-