Simpson v. Little Rock, City of et al

Filing 26

ORDER partly granting and partly denying without prejudice 9 and 20 Motions to dismiss. The failure-to-intervene claim is dismissed with prejudice. The conspiracy claim goes forward. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/31/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
PLAINTIFF

CEDRICK SIMPSON, Sr.

v.

No. 4:17-cv-461-DPM

GREG SIEGLER..

DEFENDANT
ORDER

1.

Summary. After screening, two claims and one defendant

remain in this pro se lawsuit arising out of the 1997 killing of a grocery
store manager. NQ 3. Simpson says Detective Greg Siegler failed to
intervene in the illegal arrest, investigation, and prosecution of
Simpson for robbery and murder, and conspired with other officers to
deprive Simpson of his constitutional rights.

The many facts are

described in this Court's final ruling in Simpson's first federal case. No.
4:14-cv-165-DPM, Order NQ 69, affirmed Simpson v. City of Little Rock, 694
Fed. App'x 468 (8th Cir. 2017). Siegler seeks dismissal of both current
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

2.

Failure To Intervene. This claim probably should have been

dismissed on screening. As Siegler argues, there's no basis in law or
logic for holding an officer liable for failing to intervene in his own
actions.

To the extent Simpson alleges that Siegler should have

· Greg Siegler is no longer being sued in his official capacity. The Court directs the
Clerk to update the docket.

intervened in the other officers' conduct, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hasn't recognized a duty to intervene in
constitutional violations other than excessive force. Livers v. Schenck,
700 F.3d 340, 360 (8th Cir. 2012). There's no excessive force issue here.
Simpson alleges, instead, that the Constitution was violated when he
was arrested and prosecuted without evidence of guilt. Therefore,
Simpson's complaint doesn't state a claim against Siegler for failure to
intervene.
3.

Conspiracy To Deprive Constitutional Rights. Simpson

says Siegler conspired with Sergeant Durham, Police Chief Thomas,
and Detective Moore to violate his rights to due process and a fair trial
by coercing a false confession and withholding exculpatory evidence.
NQ 2 at 7-8. The calendar makes it impossible that Siegler conspired

with anybody to coerce a false confession from Simpson: the complaint
says Simpson falsely confessed in July of 1998; Siegler wasn't assigned
to the case until 2010. On the exculpatory evidence issue, the Court has
some doubt about whether proof of a conspiracy exists. The Court held
in the earlier case that there was no bad faith on anybody's part to
destroy or otherwise withhold evidence. No. 4:14-cv-165-DPM, Order
NQ 69 at 6, 7-8.

But, whether the conspiracy claim will ultimately

succeed isn't the current question; it's whether Simpson has plausibly
alleged that claim. Construing Simpson's pro se complaint liberally,
and making all reasonable inferences in his favor, it's at least plausible
- 2-

that Siegler conspired to deprive Simpson of his constitutional rights.
This claim therefore survives for now. The legal issues presented are
better ventilated at the summary judgment stage.
*

*

*

Siegler's motions to dismiss, NQ 9 & NQ 20, are partly granted and
partly denied without prejudice.

The failure-to-intervene claim is

dismissed with prejudice. The conspiracy claim goes forward.
So Ordered.

~-

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-3-