United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2048

___________

Gary M. Lane, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Sarpy County, a body corporate, *

*

Defendant. *

*

Patricia J. Bramhall, individually *

and in her official capacity as a *

deputy county attorney for Sarpy *

County; Marcy Tague, individually *

and in her official capacity as an * Appeal from the United States

employee and agent of Sarpy County, * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

Appellees. *

*

Larry Hellwig, individually and in his *

official capacity as a Sarpy County *

Deputy Sheriff; Michael A. Tobey, *

individually, *

*

Defendants. *

*

Michael L. Munch, individually and *

in his official capacity as County *

Attorney for Sarpy County, *

*

Appellee. *
The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Nebraska.

-2-

___________

Submitted: November 20, 1998

Filed: January 13, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Gary M. Lane (plaintiff) appeals from a final judgment entered in the United

States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissing his constitutional claims 1

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sarpy County, Nebraska, and various

officials and employees of Sarpy County (collectively defendants). Lane v. Sarpy

County, No. 8:CV97-00013 (D. Neb. Mar. 24, 1998) (order and judgment); id.

(Mar. 24, 1998) (memorandum opinion); id. (Oct. 29, 1997) (memorandum and order).

For reversal, Lane argues that the district court erred in holding that qualified

immunity protects defendants from § 1983 liability for errors made in the preparation

and execution of an arrest warrant intended for another “Gary M. Lane.” For reasons

stated below, we affirm.

 

Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343.

Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal

was timely filed pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 

As indicated above, this is a case of mistaken identity. It is undisputed in the

present case that defendants mistakenly arrested and detained plaintiff for
-3-

approximately six hours, believing him to be a different individual with the same

name. As a result, plaintiff brought this action alleging, among other things, that

defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments. Thereafter, defendants filed motions for summary judgment and to

dismiss the complaint. 

In granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the district court noted

that negligent conduct does not give rise to a due process claim pursuant to § 1983.

Lane v. Sarpy County (Mar. 24, 1998) (memorandum opinion), slip op. at 2 (citing

Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,

328 (1986) (“[T]he Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of

an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property.”)). The

district court held in the present case that it is beyond genuine dispute that the conduct

of each of the defendants was at most negligent and did not rise to the level of

recklessness; consequently, plaintiff could not establish a due process violation under

the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 2-3 (“While Munch may have been negligent in

failing to discover the discrepancy in the file, the evidence does not support plaintiff’s

claim that Munch was reckless.”); id. (Oct. 29, 1997), slip op. at 19-20 (“The evidence

shows no more than the individual who prepared the warrant mistakenly included

plaintiff’s driver’s license number, birth date, and physical description.”). The district

court also opined that, “even if the alleged false statements were removed from the

affidavit, the remaining evidence would be sufficient to support a finding of probable

cause to issue the warrant. Thus, plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his

Fourth Amendment rights based on the precepts of [Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154

(1978)].” Id. at 20. 

We agree with the district court that plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional

violation, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and

all reasonable inferences are resolved in his favor. See, e.g., Baker v. McCollan, 443

U.S. 137, 145-46 (1979) (law enforcement officers executing arrest warrants are not
-4-

constitutionally required to investigate independently every claim of innocence,

including claims of mistaken identity). Because plaintiff cannot establish a

constitutional violation, defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on

qualified immunity.

In sum, we conclude upon careful review that the district court’s analysis of this

case is correct. In our opinion, no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of

the district court is affirmed. See 8 Cir. R. 47B. th

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.