# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 15 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
A.J., by and th ro ug h h er n ex t fr ie nd Lori Dix on ; D.M., b y an d t hr ou gh hi s n ex t fri en d S ha nn on Mers ; B.M ., by an d t hr ou gh hi s n ex t fr ie nd Sh an no n M ers ; Th e Est at e o f Ro be rt J as on Jo hn so n

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

Deb or ah Lee Jo hn so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or Pla in ti ff

v.

Don ne ll W . Tank sl ey , in hi s i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty; Mat th ew J. Wagg on er, i n h is
in di vi du al cap aci ty; Perri A. Jo hn so n, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Yol an da Dig gs ; Br y an t Ho ward

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l In te rv en or s

Bo ard of P ol ic e Co m

m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s; Ric ha rd Gray , in hi s of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as Pres id en t o f th e Bo ard of P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of
St . Lou is ; Th om as Irwin , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Vic e-Pr es id en t o f th e Bo ard of

Po li ce Co m

m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s; Erwin O. Swit zer, i n h is off ic ia l

cap aci ty as Pu rch as in g M em be r of th e Bo ard of P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers of t he Cit y of St. Lo ui s; Fran ci s G. Sl ay , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Ex- Offi ci o M em be r of th e bo ard of P ol ic e Co m

m is si on ers of t he Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s; Bet tye Batt le -Tur ne r, in
he r of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as Treas ur er o f th e b oa rd of P ol ic e Co m m is si on ers of t he Cit y of St. Lo ui s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s__ __ __ __ __ __
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: Jan ua ry

13 , 20 16
Fil ed : M ay

16 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ro be rt Ja so n Jo hn so n was ki ll ed in a co ll is io n b et ween hi s m ot or cy cl e an d a car, and hi s in su ran ce com pa ny den ie d a cla im

for acci de nt al de at h ben efi ts

. Late r,

a jury fo un d ag ai ns t hi s es ta te an d mi no r ch il dr en (co ll ect iv el y , th e es ta te ) in a

wro ng fu l d eat h s ui t t he y

bro ug ht ag ai ns t th e d riv er o f th e car . The es ta te th en fil ed

th e pr es en t su it in fed eral co ur t ag ai ns t th e St

. Lou is Bo ard of Po li ce, va rio us po li ce
bo ard of fic ia ls

, an d th ree po li ce of fic ers , al le gi ng ci vi l rig ht s vi ol at io ns st em m in g

fro m th e po li ce’s ha nd li ng of th e acci de nt

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d t h e p o l ic e 1

bo ard an d th e po li ce bo ard of fic ia ls fro m th e cas e an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in

fav or of th e th ree po li ce of fic er de fen da nt s. The es ta te ap pe al s th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, as well as t he di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l of a m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s ari si ng ou t

of a di sc ov ery di sp ut e. Fi nd in g no rev ers ib le erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s, we

affi rm

. 2

The Hon or ab le Ch arl es A. Sh aw, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

W e h av e juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 2

-2

-I

Bec au se th is ap pe al co m es to us fro m a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e
de fen da nt s, we su m

m ari ze th e rel ev an t fact s be lo w as fav or ab ly to th e pl ai nt iff s a s

th e rec or d a ll ows . See Ri cci v. DeSt efan o, 5 57 U.S. 55 7, 5 86 (20 09 ).

On th e aft ern oo n of Ju ne 1, 20 08 , S t. Lou i s M e t r o p ol it an Po li ce Dep art m en t

Lieu te na nt Don ne ll Tan ks le y was dr iv in g wes t on Natu ral Bri dg e Ro ad in St

. Lou is

in an un m ark ed po li ce car whe n he sa w a gr ou p of m ot or cy cl es , al so tra ve li ng wes t.

In la te r de po si ti on te st im o n y, Ta n k sl ey sa id th at on e of th e m ot or cy cl es , y el lo w in

co lo r, was weav in g in an d ou t of th e bi cy cl e la ne

. Tan ks le y tu rn ed on hi s si ren , an d

in res po ns e, th e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e p ul le d i nt o t he pa rk in g l ot of a Sh el l ga s st at io n

at th e c o r n er of Natu ral Bri dg e Ro ad an d Mar cu s Ave nu e. Tan ks le y fo ll owe d th e

m ot or cy cl e in to th e ga s st at io n, bu t as he pi ck ed u p h i s m ic ro ph on e to no ti fy th e

po li ce di sp at ch er of th e st op , th e m ot or cy cl e sp ed of f ba ck on to Natu ral Bri dg e, th is

ti m e tr av el in g e as t. Tan ks le y tes ti fie d t ha t h e to ld th e p ol ic e di sp at ch er t ha t h e h ad

tri ed to pu ll ov er a y el lo w m ot or cy cl e fo r care le ss an d reck le ss dr iv in g, bu t th at it ha d

dr iv en away. A sh or t pe rio d of ti m e th erea fte r – va rio us ly de sc rib ed by Tan ks le y as

“ a few se co nd s” or “ a m in ut e or two

, or m ay be m om en ts la te r”
– Tan ks le y pr oc eed ed

to dr iv e ba ck on to Natu ral Bri dg e he ad in g eas t, an d cam e up on an acci de nt be twee n

a y el lo w m ot or cy cl e an d a whi te car at th e in te rs ect io n o f Nat ur al Bri dg e Ro ad an d

Par i s Ave nu e. The dr iv er of th e m ot or cy cl e was Ro be rt Ja so n Jo hn so n. Tan ks le y

te st ifi ed th at he be li ev ed th e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e in vo lv ed in th e acci de nt was th e sa m e

on e h e h ad pu ll ed ov er ea rli er.

Tan ks le y te st ifi ed th at he co nt act ed th e po li ce di sp at ch er to rep or t th e acci de nt

an d re qu es te d t he po li ce de pa rtment’s Acci de nt Reco ns tru ct io n Un it . A nu m be r of

ot he r of fic ers arri ve d at th e sc en e, in cl ud in g Offi cer Mat th ew W ag go ne r. W ag go ne r

ta lk ed to Tan ks le y as well as th e dr iv er of th e whi te car, Bryant Howar d, an d hi s fro nt

pa ss en ge r, Yol an da Dig gs , an d pr ep ared an acci de nt rep or t wit h na rrat iv e st at em en ts

-3

-fro m Tan ks le y , Howar d, an d Dig gs , an d a sk et ch of th e acci de nt sc en e. Ph ot og rap hs 3

were al so ta ke n of th e s cen e. The acci de nt rep or t no te s th at Jo hn so n’s sp eed an d

im pr op er la ne us ag e were “ pr ob ab le co nt rib ut in g ci rcu m st an ces ” of th e acci de nt

, an d

st at es th at Jo hn so n wou ld be su bjec t to ch arg es fo r “Imp r o p e r Lan e Usa ge ” an d

“ Rec kl es s Driv in g by Oth er.” Jo hn so n ha d be en ta ke n to a ho sp it al an d was un ab le

to gi ve a st at em en t t o Wagg on er d ue to hi s i nju rie s. He d ie d l at er t ha t d ay

.

The na rrat iv e st at em en t ta ke n fro m Tan ks le y an d in cl ud ed in t h e a cci de nt

rep or t de sc rib es hi s earl ie r pu rs ui t of th e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e, an d i s i n it s es se nt ia ls

co ns is te nt wit h th e acco un t gi ve n ab ov e. It sp eci fic al ly no te s th at Tan ks le y ha d to ld

th e po li ce di sp at ch er th at th e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e ha d be en en ga gi ng i n care le ss an d

reck le ss dr iv in g. Als o in th e rep or t is Howar d’s st at em en t th at he was tra ve li ng eas t

on Natu ral Bri dg e Ro ad an d in th e pr oc es s of m ak in g a rig ht tu rn on to Pari s Ave nu e,
whe n he sa w th e m ot or cy cl e en te r th e in te rs ect io n fro m th e w e st

, dr iv in g in th e
bi cy cl e la ne

. He sa id th at th e m ot or cy cl e cl ip pe d hi s fro nt bu m pe r, de fle ct ed of

f, an d

fli pp ed sev eral ti m es . The m ot or cy cl e d riv er’s b od y hi t a u ti li ty pol e o n t he si de of

th e st reet an d was kn oc ke d of f th e m ot or cy cl e, la nd in g in th e st reet

. Dig gs ’s

st at em en t in th e rep or t is su bs ta nt ia ll y ide nti cal to Howar d’s. W ag go ne r’s su pe rv is or , Serg ean t Perr i Jo hn so n, sp ok e to bo th W ag go ne r an d Tan ks le y be fo re th e rep or t was

4

co m pl et e an d he la te r rev ie wed th e rep or t an d si gn ed of f o n i t a s t h e rev ie win g

of fic er.

The es ta te cl ai m s th e reco rd is in co ns is te nt as t o w h e t h e r W ag go ne r di d, in 3

fact

, pr ep are th e acci de nt rep or t on hi s own , or whe th er Tan ks le y he lp ed

. The reco rd
sh ows no su ch in co ns is te nc y

. W ag go ne r is li st ed on th e r e p or t as th e “ rep or ti ng of fic er,” bu t te st ifi ed in de po si ti on th at Tan ks le y as si st ed hi m in pr ep ari ng th e rep or t.
In hi s res po ns es to req ue st s fo r ad m is si on , Ta n k s le y ad m it te d in pa rt an d de ni ed in

pa rt th at he as si st ed W ag go ne r in pr ep ari ng th e rep or t

, s t a t i n g th at he ga ve a
st at em en t to W ag go ne r an d di rect ed hi m to in cl ud e it in th e rep or t, bu t th at he di d no t

as si st W ag go ne r in dr af

ti ng th e rep or t.

Perr i J oh ns on ha s s in ce b een pro m ot ed to Lieu te na nt

. 4

-4

-In la te r de po si ti on te st im on y , bo th Howar d an d Dig gs sa id th at th e st at em en ts

at tri bu te d to th em in th e acci de nt rep or t were accu ra t e

. B o t h ad di ti on al ly co rro bo

rat ed as pe ct s of Tan ks le y ’s st or y : th ey sa id th at be fo re th e acci de nt

, whi le eas tb ou nd

on Natu ral Bri dg e Ro ad

, th ey ha d se en a y el lo w m ot or cy cl e tra ve li ng wes t, fo ll owe d
by a car. Afte r t h e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e po pp ed a whe el ie

, th e car ta il in g th e

m ot or cy cl e tu rn ed on a si ren an d th e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e pu ll e d ov er at a Sh el l ga s

st at io n. Howar d te st ifi ed th at th e y el lo w m ot or cy cl e he sa w pu ll in g in to th e Sh el l ga s

s t a t io n was th e sa m e on e la te r in vo lv ed in th e acci de nt

, an d th at jus t be fo re t h e
acci de nt th e m ot or cy cl e was dri vi ng fas t i n t he bi cy cl e la ne

.

In th e en d, no acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n was pe rfo rm ed

. Offi cer Bri an W al tm an

of th e Acci de nt Rec on st ru ct io n Uni t di d vi si t Jo hn so n at th e ho sp it al to de te rm in e hi s

co nd it io n. He to ld th e tra ffi c se rg ean t th at Jo hn so n was in cri ti cal -u ns ta bl e co nd it io n,
bu t a l i v e. The tra ffi c se rg ean t la te r de ci de d th at th e Acci de nt Rec on st ru ct io n Uni t

wou ld no t b e in ve st ig at in g t he acci de nt

.

Jo hn so n ha d $2 5,0 00 in li fe in s u r a n c e an d $2 5,0 00 in acci de nt al de at h an d

di sm em be rm en t co ve rag e. The in su ran ce co m pa ny, rel y in g pr im ari ly on th e acci de nt

rep or t, de te rm in ed th at th e acci de nt al de at h be ne fit s w e r e n o t pa y ab le

. In it s vi ew,

th e acci de nt rep or t sh owe d th at Jo hn so n had be en dr iv in g in a care le ss an d reck le ss

m an ne r in vi ol at io n of Mi ss ou ri la w, whi ch req ui res th at v e h ic le s be op erat ed in a

“ care fu l an d pr ud en t m an ne r , ” se e Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 30 4.0 12

, an d ha d th ereb y
tri gg ered th e p ol ic y ’s cri m e ex cl us io n.

In 20 09

, Jo hn so n’s m in or ch il dr en an d es ta te br ou gh t a wro ng fu l de at h su it in

Mi ss ou ri s ta te co ur t ag ai ns t Br y an t Ho ward . After a tri al in whi ch Howar d, Di gg s,

a n d Tan ks le y te st ifi ed li ve an d po rti on s of W ag go ne r’s de po si ti on te st im on y w e r e
read , a jury fo un d i n fa vo r of Howar d.

-5

-Thi s fed eral la wsu it fo ll owe d in 20 13

. As rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, th e es ta te

su ed Tan ks le y , W ag go ne r, an d Perr i Jo hn so n un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 fo r vi ol at in g

i t s rig ht s to su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s an d eq ua l pr ot ect io n un de r th e Fo u r t e e n t h

Am en dm en t an d fo r en ga gi ng in a c on sp ira cy ari si ng ou t of th es e co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io ns

. Dur in g th e co u r s e o f t h e cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed a m ot io n fo r

sa nc ti on s ag ai ns t Howar d an d Dig gs fo r at te m pt in g to res ch e du le th ei r de po si ti on s
sh or tl y be fo re th ey were to ta ke pl ace an d th en no t sh owi ng up

. Fi na l jud gm en t was

en te red aft er th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t

on al l cl ai m s. The es ta te ap pe al s th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t an d th e de ni al of th e

m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s.

II

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo

. Torg ers on

v. Ci ty o f Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d 10 31

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr ecl ud ed whe n th ere are “ sp eci fic fact s sh owi ng th at th ere is a ge nu in e
is su e fo r tri al .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mat su sh it a Elec

. In du s. Co

. v. Zen it h Rad io Co rp ., 47 5

U.S. 57 4, 58 7 (1 98 6) ). “ W he re th e reco rd ta ke n as a who le co ul d no t le ad a rat io na l

tri er of fact to fin d fo r th e no n- m ov i n g pa rty, th ere is no ‘gen ui ne is su e fo r tri al .’ ”

Mat su sh it a, 47 5 U.S. at 58 7 (q uo ti ng Fi rs t Nat’l Ban k of Ariz

. v. Ci ti es Serv

. Co

., 39 1

U.S. 25 3, 2 89 (19 68 )).

The est at e’s su bs ta nt iv e d ue pro ces s cl ai m is arg ue d o n t wo b as es : fi rs t, t ha t

th e de fen da nt s fal si fie d th e acci de nt rep or t, an d se co nd

, t ha t th ey fai le d to pe rfo rm

an ad eq ua te in ve st ig a t i o n o f th e acci de nt

. W it h res pe ct to th e fir st ba si s, th e es ta te

arg ue s th at th e de fen da nt po li ce of fic ers fal si fie d th e acci d e n t rep or t, an d th at th e

fal se in fo rm at io n in th e rep or t cau se d th e de ni al of th ei r in su ran ce cl ai m , th e lo ss of

th ei r wro ng fu l de at h la wsu it

, an d th e de ni al of m ean in gf ul acce ss to th e co ur ts

. The

li nc hp in of each of th es e th eo rie s is th at th e de f e n d a n t p o l i ce of

fic ers pr ep ared an
acci de nt rep or t t ha t fa ls el y pl aced bl am e o n J oh ns on for th e acc id en t.

-6

-The es ta te

, ho wev er, fai ls to ad du ce fact s th at

, if in cl ud ed in (o r ex cl ud ed fro m )

th e rep or t, m ig ht real is ti cal ly ha ve ex cu lp at ed Jo hn so n in th e ey es of a n i n su ran ce

co m pa ny or a jury. In st ead

, th e fo ll owi ng ex am pl es i l lu st rat e th e na tu re of th e

es ta te ’s com

pl ai nt s:

• A m ap W ag go ne r dr ew an d in cl ud ed wit h th e acci de nt rep or t do es

no t d e p i c t a pa rk in g la ne fo r ve hi cl es on th e eas tb ou nd si de of

Natu ral Bri dg e Ave nu e.

• Bo xe s are ch eck ed on th e acci de nt rep or t in di cat in g th a t J o h n

so n’s ex ces si ve sp eed an d im pr op er la ne us ag e were “ pr ob ab le

co nt rib ut in g ci rcu m st an ces ” to th e acci de nt

, th ou gh th e na rrat iv e
st at em en ts in th e rep or t from Howar d a nd Dig gs do no t m en ti on th at th e m ot or cy cl e was sp eed in g.

• Tan ks le y was li st ed in th e “ W it ne ss es ” se ct io n of th e acci de nt

rep or t, th ou gh th e Mi s s o u r i Uni fo rm Acci de nt Prep arat io n Man ua l st at es th at th e se ct io n sh ou ld in cl ud e “ pe rs on s wit ne ss in g acci de nt ,” an d Tan ks le y was no t at th e sc en e whe n th e ac c i d e nt

to ok pl ace. 5

Mi no r di sc rep an ci es of th is so rt, st an di ng al on e, do no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce su ffi ci en t

to pe rm it a co nc lu si on th at th e acci de nt rep or t was fal s e i n a n y mat eri al way

. See
Torg ers on , 64 3 F.3 d at 10 42 (o n su m m ary jud gm en t “ [t]he no nm ov an t ‘m us t do m or e

th an si m pl y s h o w t h a t t h ere is so m e m et ap hysic al do ub t as to th e m at eri al fact s’”
(q uo ti ng Mat su sh it a, 47 5 U.S. at 58 6) ); W il so n v. Ci ty of Des Mo in es , 29 3 F.3 d 44 7,

45 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ W e wil l no t di sc us s th e di sp ut es co nc ern in g wha t in fo rm at io n

th e of fic ers he ard br oa d c a s t ov er th e po li ce rad io

, th e ve rb al warn in gs th at th e

of fic ers rece iv ed whe n t he y arri ve d a t t he sce ne , and who pr ov id ed th es e warn in gs

. It se em s li ke ly t ha t th es e di sc rep an ci es are m in or an d im m at eri al .”); Ask ew v. Ci ty

of Ch ic ag o, 44 0 F.3 d 89 4, 89 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ The so rt of in co ns is te nc ie s to whi ch
[th e pl ai nt iff

s] po in t[] are no rm al

. Ey ewit ne ss es rem em be r th in gs di ffer en tl y

. Po li ce

W e no te th at th e m an ua l do es no t sp eci fy th at pe rs on s wit ne ss in g th e acci de nt 5

are t he on ly pe rs on s wh o s ho ul d b e in cl ud ed in th e Witn es se s s ect io n.

-7

-do n’t al way s fo ll ow co rrec t pr oc ed ur e

. . . . If th es e were su ffi ci en t to pe rm it se co nd

gu es si ng an d da m ag es , th en th e job of po li ci ng wou ld be ve ry r i s k y f in an ci al ly as
well as ph y si cal ly.”). The es t a t e o f f ers no arg um en t as to ho w th es e pu rp or te d

di sc rep an ci es ren de red th e acci de nt rep or t m at eri al ly fal se , an d we se e no th in g in th e

reco rd th at wou ld pe rm it a rat io na l ju ry to reac h t ha t co nc lu si on

.

As a res ul t, we ne ed no t d eci de whe th er th ere co ul d ev er be a su cces sf ul du e

pr oc es s cl ai m ba se d on a fal se po li ce rep or t th at cau s e s t h e de ni al of an in su ran ce
cl ai m fo r acci de nt al de at h ben efi ts or th e lo ss of a ci vi l su it

. The Thi rd Ci rcu it

, in a

non- pr ec ed en tia l de ci sio n, ha s he ld th at th ere is no co ns ti tu ti on al ly- pr ote ct ed pr ope rt y

in te res t in a fu ll ve hi cu la r in su ran ce se tt le m en t, Ja rret t v. Town of Ben sa le m , 31 2 F.
App ’x 50 5, 50 7– 08 (3 d Ci r. 20 09 ) (u np ub li sh ed ), bu t th e Nin th Ci rcu it ha s he ld th at

“ th e de pr iv at io n of pe ns io n or di sa bi li t y b e n e fit s am ou nt s to th e de pr iv at io n of

c o n st it ut io na ll y pr ot ect ed pr op ert y ,” Po rtman v. Ct y . o f San ta Cl ara, 99 5 F.2 d 89 8,

90 5– 07 (9 th Ci r. 19 93 ). See al so Ru ss el l v. Dun st on , 89 6 F.2 d 66 4, 66 8 (2 d Ci r.

19 90 ) (“ The en ti tl em en t to di sa bi li ty ret ire m en t is a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed

pr op ert y in te res t fo r pu rp os es of Sect io n 19 83 .”); Gray Pan th ers v

. Sch weik er, 65 2

F.2 d 14 6, 14 8 n.2 (D.C. Ci r. 19 80 ) (n ot in g th at pa rti es ag reed th at “ cl ai m an ts ’ in te res t

in rece iv in g th e m ed ic al in su ran ce be ne fit s fo r whi ch th e y ha ve pa id a m on th ly

pr em iu m is a pr op ert y in te res t” pro te ct ed by th e Due Pro ces s Clau se ). W he th er the

de ni al of t he acci de nt al de at h i ns ur an ce cl ai m an d t he fai lu re of

th e wro ng fu l d eat h

su it at issue he re im

pli ca te co nst itu tio na ll y -p ro te ct ed pr op ert y rig ht s “ m us t be de ci de d
by re fere nc e to st at e la w,” whi ch th e p art ie s h av e no t br ie fed an d whi ch , i n li gh t of

ou r co nc lu si on s ab ov e, we ha ve no ne ed to ad dr es s. Bi sh op v. W oo d, 42 6 U.S. 34 1,

34 4 (1 97 6)

. St il l le ss do we ne ed to a d d r e s s w h e t he r an y su ch pr op ert y rig ht is a

fu nd am en ta l r i g h t pr ot ect ed by su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s. See Fl owe rs v. Ci ty of

Mi nn eap ol is , 47 8 F .3d 86 9, 8 72 –7 3 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ).

The sa m e is tru e fo r th e es ta te ’s cl ai m th at it was de pr iv ed of m ean in gf ul acce ss

to th e co ur ts du rin g th e co ur se of th e wro ng fu l de at h su it be cau se th e d e f e n d a n ts

-8

-pr ep ared a fal se acci de nt rep or t. Tho ug h we fin d th e le ga l t he or y be hi nd th is cla im

du bi ou s in th e fir st in st an ce, as it is ba se d so le ly on di ss at is fact io n wit h th e ev id en ce

p r es en te d by th e ot he r si de

, we ne ed no t pu rs ue th e is su e to it s co nc l u s i o n

. Th e

ev id en ce, ev en whe n ta ke n in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e es ta te

, is in su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h th e fact ua l pr em is e un de rlyin g th e th eo ry – th at th e a c c i d e n t rep or t was

m at eri al ly fals e.

W e ne xt tu rn to whe th er th e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se by

f ai li ng to ad eq ua te ly in ve st ig at e th e acci de nt

. To su ccee d on th is ba si s, th e e s t a t e

m us t sh ow th at th e de fen da nt s “ in te nt io na ll y or rec k le ss ly fai le d to in ve st ig at e,

th ereb y sh oc ki ng th e co ns ci en ce.” Aki ns v. Epp erl y , 58 8 F.3 d 11 78

, 11 84 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Am

rin e v. Bro o ks

, 52 2 F.3 d 82 3, 83 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). The es ta te

po in ts to th e fact th at th e de fen da nt p o l ic e of fic ers di dn ’t in te rv ie w an y wit ne ss es
be si de s Tan ks le y , Howar d, an d Dig gs , pe rfo rm an y m eas ur em en ts of th e acci de nt

sc en e, pr es erv e ph y si cal ev id en ce, o r pe rfo rm acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n. Bu t t he re i s

no ev id en ce th at th ere wer e an y ad di ti on al wit ne ss es th at t h e d e f e n da nt s fai le d to

in te rv ie w, or an y p h y si cal ev id en ce th at th ey fai le d to pr es erv e. Nor is th ere an y

in di cat io n th at th e d e fen da nt po li ce of fic ers were req ui red by de pa rtment po li cy or

la w to ta ke m eas ur em en ts of th e acci de nt sc en e or pe rfo rm acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n:

on th e co nt rary, in cas es whe re de at h ha s oc cu rred or i s i mm i ne nt

, th e po li ce
de pa rtmen t ’s w r i tt en pr oc ed ur es fo r ha nd li ng acci de nt s req ui re m erel y th at th e

ha nd li ng of

fic er “ad v i s e th e di sp at ch er of th e ci rcu m st an ces of th e acci de nt ,” an d
pl ace on th e di sp at ch er th e res po ns ib il it y fo r co nt act in g th e Acci de nt Rec on st ru ct io n
Uni t. More ov er, it is un di sp ut ed th at th e de fen da nt po li ce o ffi cers were n ot tra in ed

in acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n, an d were no t in a po si ti on to pe rfo rm acci de nt reco ns tru cti on th em se lv es

. Fi na ll y , th e es ta te of fere d n o ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt s were

res po ns ib le fo r m ak in g th e de ci si on no t to pe rfo rm acci de nt reco ns tru ct io n; th e on ly

ev id en ce rel ev an t to th is is su e is t h a t Ta n ks le y req ue st ed th at th e Acci de nt

Rec on st ru ct io n Un it be sen t t o t he sce ne

.

-9

-Be ca

use the re co rd co nt ai ns no ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt s m at eri al ly fa lsi fi ed

th e acci de nt rep or t or fai le d to co nd uc t a co ns ti tu ti on al ly-requ ire d in ve st ig at io n, th e
dis tr ic t cour t pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s on th e subs ta nti ve
du e p ro ces s cl ai m

.

Our co nc lu si on th at th e acci de nt rep or t was no t m at eri al ly fal se is al so

su ffi ci en t to di sp os e of th e es ta te ’s cl ai m s fo r vi ol at io n of th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se

an d co ns pi racy t o v i o l a t e c iv il rig ht s. The eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m is ba se d on

al le ga ti on s th at Tan ks le y an d Perr i Jo hn so n tri ed to fal se l y i mp l i cat e Ro be rt Ja so n

Jo hn so n be cau se he was whi te an d th ey are Afri can Am eri can

. Acco rd in g to th e

es ta te

, th e fact th at Wa g g on er, a whi te of fic er, pr ep ared th e acci de nt rep or t ev en

th ou gh he was n’t th e fir st of fic er at th e sc en e pe rm it s an in fere nc e th at Tan ks le y

or de red hi m to writ e th e rep or t in or de r to m as k th e fact th at po li ce were sc ap eg oa ti ng

J o h n s o n be cau se of hi s race

. Thi s cl ai m – fri vo lo us in it s own rig ht on th e fact s of

th is cas e – ob vi ou sl y can no t su ccee d gi ve n ou r co nc lu si on th at th ere is no ev id en ce

th at th e acci de nt rep or t was m at eri al ly fa l s e

. Th e s a me is tru e of th e cl ai m th at th e
de fen da nt s co ns pi red to de pr iv e Jo hn so n of hi s ci vi l r i g h t s: to be li ab le fo r ci vi l

co ns pi racy, th e de fendan ts m ust ha ve co m

m itt ed som e oth er un de rlyin g co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io n, Nov ot ny v. Trip p Ct y ., 66 4 F.3 d 11 73

, 11 80 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), an d th e es ta te

ha s fa il ed to sh ow o ne . We t he refo re affi rm th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he

eq ua l p ro te ct io n a nd co ns pi racy clai m s as well

.

Fi na ll y th e es ta te as se rts t h e d i s tri ct co ur t erre d in de nyin g it s m ot io n fo r

sa nc ti on s ag ai n st Howar d an d Dig gs fo r at te m pt in g to res ch ed ul e th ei r de po si ti on s

on th e m or ni ng th e de po si ti on s were sc he du le d to ta ke pl ace, an d th en no t at te nd in g.

On Ju ly 26

, 20 14

, ab ou t two an d a ha lf y ears aft er th e es ta te lo st th e wro ng fu l de at h

su it an d ap pr ox im at el y a y ear aft er th is on e was fil ed

, th e es ta te se rv ed su bp oe na s on

H ow ar d and Dig gs , sc he du li ng th ei r de po si ti on s fo r th e aft ern oo n of Aug us t 22

, 20 14

.

-1 0-Acco rd in g to writ te n br ie fs an d in -co ur t arg um en t by Howar d an d Dig gs , Howar d 6

co nt act ed hi s at to rn ey s fro m th e st at e co ur t wro ng fu l de at h cas e ab ou t th e su bp oe na s

th e m or ni ng of Aug us t 22 , c on cern ed th at he was be in g su ed

. One of h i s at to rn ey s

em ai le d co un se l fo r th e es ta te th at m or ni ng , se ek in g to res ch ed ul e th e de po si ti on s.

Co un se l fo r th e es ta te refu se d, wen t fo rward wit h th e de po si ti on s th at aft ern oo n, an d

no te d on th e re c o r d t h a t H o ward an d Dig gs ha d fai le d to sh ow up

. The es ta te th en

m ov ed fo r co st s an d sa nc ti on s, de m an di ng $1 04 .50 in co st s ari si ng ou t of Howar d’s

an d Dig gs ’s no n- ap pe aran ce, an d $1 ,90 0 in at to rn ey ’s fees

. It al so as ke d th e di st ric t

co ur t to ho ld Howar d an d Dig gs in co nt em pt

. In res po ns e, Howar d an d Dig gs arg ue d

th at th e es ta te ’s co un se l was at fau lt fo r no t co nt act in g th e la wy ers fro m th e wro ng fu l

de at h cas e ab ou t th e de po si ti on s. (The es ta te was rep res en te d by th e sa m e at to rn ey s

in th e st at e cas e as well

, so it s at to rn ey s kn ew th e la wy ers who rep res en te d Howard

an d Di gg s at th e h eari ng .)

The di st ric t co ur t he ld a he a r i ng an d or al ly de ni ed th e m ot io n. In it ia ll y , th e

co ur t sa id th e co nf

li ct “ so un ds li ke a was h t o m e,” rec og ni zi ng th at each si de ha d a

po te nt ia l co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t th e ot he r ov er th e sc he du li ng di sp ut e. W he n Ho ward ’s

la wy er s ai d, “ W e o ffer ed to pro du ce [Ho ward ] an d [Di gg s] at ag reea bl e ti m es ,” th e
di st ric t co ur t re sp on de d:

Let’s d o t h a t

. Hey

, as th at gr eat Cal ifo rn ia ph il os op he r Ro dn ey Kin g

sa id

, “ Can ’t we al l jus t ge t al on g, p l e a s e ? ” And th ere is a gr eat er
pr in ci pl e of th e la w: it ’s cal le d ag gr av at io n of th e co ur t. Don ’t co m e in
he re wit h th is li tt le st uf

f wor ry in g m e. You are al l of fic ers of th e co ur t.
Ro dn ey Kin g, who m ay

be he gr ad ua te d f

ro m hi gh sc ho ol

, m ay

be he

Howar d an d Dig gs arg ue th at t h e t r a n sc rip t of th e he ari ng sh ou ld no t be 6

co ns id ered be cau se it was no t in cl ud ed in th e joi nt ap pe nd ix

. Bu t “ [p ]arts of th e

rec o r d may be rel ie d on by th e co ur t or th e pa rti es ev en th ou gh no t in cl ud ed in th e
ap pe nd ix ,” Fed

. R. App

. P. 30 (a)( 2)

, an d th e tra ns cri pt is pa rt of th e reco rd

, av ai la bl e

as do cu m en t 1 44 in th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d oc ke t.

-1 1-di dn ’t, he ha d eno ug h sen se to kn ow th at ab ou t ge tt in g al on g, wor ki ng

th in gs ou t. Yo u a ll go t t o d o t hi s. So I’m de nyin g th is m ot io n. Tha t’s a was h. [Ho ward an d Dig gs ] di dn ’t

te ll [th ei r at to rn ey s], [th e e st at e’s co un se l] di dn ’t no ti fy [Ho ward ’s

at to rn ey s] . . . . You all work ou t a d at e.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a mo ti on fo r sa nc ti on s fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Gall ag he r v. Mag ne r, 61 9 F.3 d 8 2 3, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The di st ric t

co ur t vi ewed bo th pa rti es pa rti a l l y at fau lt

, an d co ns id ered th e di sp ut e to be a

sc he du li ng m at te r be tt er res ol ve d by th e pa rti es th em se lv e s t h an by th e co ur t. W e
be li ev e th es e to be reas on ab le co nc lu si on s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to dr aw ba se d on th e

ev en ts reco un te d ab ov e, an d th e co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e

m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s.

III

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-1 2-