Matthew Suschanke v. Thomas Neske

Eighth Circuit

Matthew Suschanke v. Thomas Neske

498 F. App'x 672

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

Docket12-1729

StatusUnpublished

This text of 498 F. App'x 672 (Matthew Suschanke v. Thomas Neske) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthew Suschanke v. Thomas Neske, 498 F. App'x 672 (8th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Suschanke appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Sus-chanke failed to state a section 1983 claim against Thomas Neske for false arrest, see Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d 306, 310 (8th *673 Cir.1987) (person who is already under arrest and in police custody cannot be “rearrested”), or for either excessive force or violation of intimate-association rights, see King v. Olmsted Cnty., 117 F.3d 1065, 1067-68 (8th Cir.1997) (mere verbal threats generally do not support § 1988 claim). Thus, Suschanke failed to state similar claims against the City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (Board). See Moore v. City of Desloge, Mo., 647 F.3d 841, 849 (8th Cir.2011) (municipal liability for failure to train or supervise cannot attach unless individual liability is first found on underlying substantive claim); Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir.2009) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires showing of constitutional violation pursuant to official custom, policy, or practice of governmental entity); Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 559 n. 1 (8th Cir.2008) (§ 1983 claims cannot be based on respondeat superior or vicarious liability). Having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Suschanke’s state-law false-imprisonment claims against Neske and the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, clarifying that the dismissal of the state-law claims is without prejudice, see Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Suschanke appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Sus-chanke failed to state a section 1983 claim against Thomas Neske for false arrest, see Garionis v. Newton, 827 F.2d 306, 310 (8th *673 Cir.1987) (person who is already under arrest and in police custody cannot be “rearrested”), or for either excessive force or violation of intimate-association rights, see King v. Olmsted Cnty., 117 F.3d 1065, 1067-68 (8th Cir.1997) (mere verbal threats generally do not support § 1988 claim). Thus, Suschanke failed to state similar claims against the City of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (Board). See Moore v. City of Desloge, Mo., 647 F.3d 841, 849 (8th Cir.2011) (municipal liability for failure to train or supervise cannot attach unless individual liability is first found on underlying substantive claim); Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir.2009) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires showing of constitutional violation pursuant to official custom, policy, or practice of governmental entity); Brown v. Fortner, 518 F.3d 552, 559 n. 1 (8th Cir.2008) (§ 1983 claims cannot be based on respondeat superior or vicarious liability). Having properly dismissed the federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Suschanke’s state-law false-imprisonment claims against Neske and the Board. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, clarifying that the dismissal of the state-law claims is without prejudice, see Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 F. App'x 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-suschanke-v-thomas-neske-ca8-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack