Clem v. Counts

E.D. Arkansas

Clem v. Counts

DecidedOctober 15, 2024

Docket4:22-cv-00195

StatusUnknown

This text of Clem v. Counts (Clem v. Counts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clem v. Counts, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION NEIL CLEM PLAINTIFF REG. #25946-009 Vv. No. 4:22-cv-195-DPM ANTHONY COUNTS and HOLDEN LESTER DEFENDANTS ORDER Officers Counts and Lester have moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. Clem hasn’t responded. The material facts stated by Counts and Lester, Doc. 39 & 44, are therefore deemed admitted. LOCAL RULE 56.1(c). The Court has otherwise taken the record in the light most favorable to Clem. Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 531-32 (8th Cir. 2019). Based on the undisputed facts of record, officers Counts and Lester had probable cause to stop Clem’s vehicle. Johnson v. Crooks, 326 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 2003). They didn’t violate his constitutional rights when they searched him, because he was a probationer subject to a search waiver. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006). And they had probable cause to arrest him after field-testing the dark, sticky, vinegar-smelling substance they found on him. New v. Denver, 787 F.3d 895, 899 (8th Cir. 2015). Even though the result of the field test

was mistaken, and the substance turned out not to be heroin, the legal analysis on probable cause in the moment remains the same. Clem’s Fourth Amendment claims therefore fail as a matter of law. Ibid. And his Fifth Amendment due process claims fail because neither Counts nor Lester were federal officials. Barnes v. City of Omaha, 574 F.3d 1003, 1005 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009). Because the officers didn’t violate Clem’s clearly established constitutional rights, they’re entitled to qualified immunity. New, 787 F.3d at 899. In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clem’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (8th Cir. 2020).

Motions for summary judgment, Doc. 37 & 42, granted as specified and denied without prejudice on the state law claims. Judgment will issue. So Ordered. _ endl D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 15 Octvber roay

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION NEIL CLEM PLAINTIFF REG. #25946-009 Vv. No. 4:22-cv-195-DPM ANTHONY COUNTS and HOLDEN LESTER DEFENDANTS ORDER Officers Counts and Lester have moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. Clem hasn’t responded. The material facts stated by Counts and Lester, Doc. 39 & 44, are therefore deemed admitted. LOCAL RULE 56.1(c). The Court has otherwise taken the record in the light most favorable to Clem. Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 531-32 (8th Cir. 2019). Based on the undisputed facts of record, officers Counts and Lester had probable cause to stop Clem’s vehicle. Johnson v. Crooks, 326 F.3d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 2003). They didn’t violate his constitutional rights when they searched him, because he was a probationer subject to a search waiver. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 857 (2006). And they had probable cause to arrest him after field-testing the dark, sticky, vinegar-smelling substance they found on him. New v. Denver, 787 F.3d 895, 899 (8th Cir. 2015). Even though the result of the field test

was mistaken, and the substance turned out not to be heroin, the legal analysis on probable cause in the moment remains the same. Clem’s Fourth Amendment claims therefore fail as a matter of law. Ibid. And his Fifth Amendment due process claims fail because neither Counts nor Lester were federal officials. Barnes v. City of Omaha, 574 F.3d 1003, 1005 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009). Because the officers didn’t violate Clem’s clearly established constitutional rights, they’re entitled to qualified immunity. New, 787 F.3d at 899. In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clem’s state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); McManemy v. Tierney, 970 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (8th Cir. 2020).

Motions for summary judgment, Doc. 37 & 42, granted as specified and denied without prejudice on the state law claims. Judgment will issue. So Ordered. _ endl D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 15 Octvber roay

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clem v. Counts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clem-v-counts-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack