Simpson v. Little Rock, City of et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Simpson has two claims left against Siegler: failure to intervene and conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights. Simpson's other claims are all dismissed with prejudice. Simpson must file (under seal) current address information for Siegler by 9/25/2017. The Court needs that information to get a summons issued and the suit papers served by the U.S. Marshal. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/25/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
CEDRICK SIMPSON, Sr.
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:17-cv-461-DPM

CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, a municipality;
GREG SIEGLER, individually and in
official capacity; STEVE MOORE, individually
and in official capacity; M. DURHAM,
Sgt., individually and in official capacity;
and STUART THOMAS, individually
and in official capacity

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. Simpson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, NQ 1, is granted. He
has little income and can't afford the filing fee.
2. The Court must screen Simpson's complaint. 28U.S.C.§1915(e)(2).
This is Simpson's second lawsuit about his involvement, arrest, and trial in a
state murder case. No. 4:14-cv-165-DPM.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently
affirmed this Court's grant of summary judgment on several of Simpson's
federal claims: (1) a Brady claim; (2) a§ 1983 due process claim; (3) a§ 1983

Monell claim; (4) a§ 1983 destruction-of-exculpatory-evidence claim; and
(5) a § 1983 suppression-of-exculpatory-material claim. Simpson v. City of

Little Rock,_ F. App'x __, 2017 WL 3411882 (9 August 2017) (per curiam).

The Court of Appeals also held that any Fourth Amendment claim failed on
limitations grounds. Ibid. Claim preclusion would bar Simpson from raising
any of these claims again, though he doesn't appear to do so, at least not by
name. Mountain Pure, LLC v. Turner Holdings, LLC, 439 F.3d 920, 923-24 (8th
Cir. 2006).
In the earlier case, at Simpson's request made during summary
judgment briefing, this Court dismissed two of his federal claims against
Little Rock and Siegler - failure to intervene and conspiracy to deprive
constitutional rights-without prejudice. That non-merits dismissal means
there's no claim preclusion bar against these claims. Mountain Pure, LLC, 439
F.3d at 925; RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS§ 20(1)(b) (1980).
These two claims pass screening only as to Siegler, though. In his new
complaint, Simpson doesn't allege any wrongdoing on the City's part in these
two claims. Ng 2 at 5-8. And as to Moore, Durham, and Thomas, these two
claims are untimely. More than three years passed between the alleged
violations and Simpson's filing of his current complaint. Morton v. City of
Little Rock, 934 F.2d 180, 182-83 (8th Cir. 1991). And because Simpson didn't

-2-

name and serve Moore, Durham, and Thomas in his first lawsuit, the
Arkansas savings statute doesn't apply. ARK. CODE ANN.§ 16-56-126; Smith

v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co., 353 Ark. 701, 713, 120 S.W.3d 525,
532 (2003).
Simpson's other current federal claims appear to be re-labeled versions
of Arkansas law claims he asserted last time. This Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims and dismissed them
without prejudice. NQ 69 in No. 4:14-cv-165-DPM. All these reclassified
claims fail now as a matter of law at the threshold.
First, Simpson can't proceed on a respondeat superior theory against Little
Rock under § 1983. Williams v. Butler, 863 F.2d 1398, 1400 (8th Cir. 1988).
Second, as to Little Rock and Siegler, Simpson's reclassified claims are barred
by claim preclusion. These claims are based on the same events as the claims
fully litigated in the first suit; they could have been raised in that suit; and
Simpson's first suit ended in a final judgment on the merits. Edwards v. City

ofJonesboro, 645F.3d1014, 1019-20 (8th Cir. 2011). That judgment, moreover,
hs now been affirmed on appeal, though that step wasn't required for the
judgment to have preclusive effect.

-3-

Third, as to Moore, Durham, and

Thomas, the reclassified claims are time-barred and were not preserved by the
savings statute. Morton, 934 F.2d at 182-83; ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-56-126;

Smith, 353 Ark. at 713, 120 S.W.3d at 532.

*

*

*

What's left? Two claims against Siegler: failure to intervene and
conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights. Simpson's other claims are all
dismissed with prejudice.
3. Simpson must file (under seal) current address information for
Siegler by 25 September 2017. The Court needs that information to get a
summons issued and the suit papers served by the U.S. Marshal. If Simpson
doesn't file this information by the deadline, then his remaining claims will
be dismissed. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2).
So Ordered.

v

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-4-