Opinion ID: 493314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Officers' Second Motion For Summary Judgment

Text: 16 Davis first argues that the district court erred in granting Officers Grant and Smith's second motion for summary judgment, as (1) the motion was not filed ten days prior to a hearing on the motion as is required by Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (2) genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment. After reviewing the record, we affirm the district court on this issue. 17 Rule 56(c) provides that a motion for summary judgment shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). This court requires strict adherence to the ten-day notice requirement in order to protect the opposing party's rights to respond to the motion. See Williams v. City of St. Louis, 783 F.2d 114, 116 (8th Cir.1986); Twin City Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 491 F.2d 1122, 1126 (8th Cir.1974). 18 We believe the defendants complied with Rule 56(c) and thus properly presented the district court with a motion for summary judgment upon which it could rule. The record reveals that the two Officers actually filed their written second motion for summary judgment jointly with the City of Charleston on March 4, 1986, almost six months prior to the September 30, 1986 trial date on which the court considered and granted the motion. The record also demonstrates, contrary to Davis' assertions on appeal, that the district court granted this second motion as to the City of Charleston, but failed altogether to rule on the motion regarding defendants Grant and Smith. Thus, the defendants' oral motion for summary judgment made on the date set for trial merely renewed, or perhaps more accurately called the court's attention to, their second motion for summary judgment filed approximately six months earlier. As a trial court is under no particular deadline to rule upon motions for summary judgment, the defendants' motion did not dissipate between March 4, 1986 and September 30, 1986 for want of a ruling. See, e.g., Grigoleit Co. v. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local No. 270, 769 F.2d 434, 437-38 (7th Cir.1985) (court's resolution of defendant's motion for summary judgment without explicit notice to plaintiff nearly two months after motion was filed complies with Rule 56(c) where plaintiff had nearly two months to file a response and plaintiff does not claim it failed to receive notice of defendant's motion); Daniels v. Morris, 746 F.2d 271, 275 (5th Cir.1984) (Rule 56(c) does not require that a party be given advance notice of a 'date certain' on which a motion for summary judgment is to be decided by the trial court.) 2 Thus, the defendants complied with Rule 56(c) and properly presented the district court with a second motion for summary judgment upon which to rule. 19 Considering the meagerness of the record before it, we are furthermore satisfied that the district court did not err in granting the defendants' second motion for summary judgment. Due to Davis' counsel's failure to appear, the record before the district court did not include trial testimony from Davis. 20 First, although we reject the defendants' assertion that collateral estoppel, by reason of Davis' conviction for peace disturbance, bars Davis' section 1983 claim for unlawful arrest, 3 we must uphold summary judgment on this claim since the only evidence in the record relevant to this issue, Officers Grant and Smith's affidavits, do not support such a claim. 21 Second, Officers Grant and Smith's failure to warn Davis of her rights pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), did not deprive her of her constitutional rights as no statements obtained from Davis during custodial interrogation were used against her during trial. See Hampton v. Gilmore, 60 F.R.D. 71, 81 (E.D.Mo.1973), aff'd, 486 F.2d 1407 (8th Cir.1973). 22 As to Davis' claim that excessive force was used against her during arrest, Davis' statements in the record fail to counter the affidavits of Officers Smith and Grant that they used only reasonable force under the circumstances. See generally Putman v. Gerloff, 639 F.2d 415, 420 (8th Cir.1981); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973). 23 Finally, Davis' claim that the Officers misrepresented under oath the facts of her arrest must also fail, as the Supreme Court has held that section 1983 does not authorize a convicted criminal to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at his or her criminal trial. See Briscoe v. Lahue, 460 U.S. 325, 342-43, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 1119-20, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). See also In Re Scott County Master Docket, 618 F.Supp. 1534, 1571 (D.Minn.1985), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir.1987).