Opinion ID: 800586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Van Buren County Defendants

Text: Crawford agrees her claims against Fogle are claims against the county. See Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.2010) (A suit against a government officer in his official capacity is functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing governmental entity.). Van Buren County may be liable if one of its customs or policies caused the violation of [Crawford's] rights. Rynders v. Williams, 650 F.3d 1188, 1195 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although rare, a public official's single incident of unconstitutional activity can establish the requisite policy if the decision is `taken by the highest officials responsible for setting policy in that area of the government's business.' Id. (quoting City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988)). Alternatively, liability may be established through proof that the alleged misconduct was so pervasive among the non-policy making employees of the municipality as to constitute a `custom or usage' with the force of law. McGautha v. Jackson Cnty., Mo., Collections Dep't, 36 F.3d 53, 56 (8th Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Liability for an unconstitutional custom or usage, however, cannot arise from a single act. Id. at 57. Rather, a custom can be shown only by adducing evidence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional conduct. Jenkins v. Cnty. of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628, 634 (8th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Crawford contends Fogle seized her dogs largely for Fogle's personal gain, which is evidenced by the fact that Fogle left many unmarketable big dogs. Moreover, according to Crawford, the dogs were in good condition. Ultimately, Crawford argues the defendants' actions established a pattern of unconstitutional misconduct. Alternatively, Crawford contends Fogle was the only animal control officer for the county, and even if the events centered around a single decision made by Fogle, this was sufficient to establish the county's unconstitutional policy. We conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment on Crawford's claims against the county. First, Crawford's 2005 claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment in [Crawford's] favor on [her] conspiracy claim would imply the invalidity of [her] conviction, and [Crawford] did not allege [her] conviction had been overturned. Alexander/Ryahim v. Monroe, 326 Fed.Appx. 977, 978 (8th Cir.2009) (unpublished per curiam). Moreover, Crawford conceded several of her allegations underlying these claims were past the statute of limitations. As for the 2006 claims, Crawford fails to dispute the district court's holding that she failed to exhaust her remedy under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.2. In Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861 (8th Cir.1998), we concluded even if the execution of the search warrant was unreasonable as to the alleged seizure of items from [the appellee's] trailers, the appellees' Fifth Amendment rights were not violated because Arkansas provides for adequate state post-deprivation remedies that satisfy due process. Id. at 874. The appellees had conceded they failed to exhaust their remedies because they had not petitioned for the return of the property pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.2. Id. ; see also Carniglia v. Dearmon, 16 Fed.Appx. 548, 549 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished per curiam). Similarly, Crawford failed to exhaust her remedies by not petitioning for the return of her dogs. Finally, Crawford failed to show an unconstitutional policy or custom was the moving force behind the violation of her rights. Fogle was acting pursuant to a valid search warrant when she entered Crawford's property to seize the dogs. Moreover, under the 2005 plea agreement, Fogle had the authority to inspect the premises twice monthly. On top of that, Crawford consented to Fogle's entry. Lastly, other than the 2006 search, Crawford does not point to any incidents or claims that would show that the entities maintained a custom of violating constitutional rights. Marksmeier v. Davie, 622 F.3d 896, 902-03 (8th Cir.2010). Thus, the court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against the county.