Lewis v. Kennemore et al
ORDER granting 27 Motion to Dismiss separate defendants Kimberly Geiser Strube (Ashdown Police Officer ), Carl Farmer (Ashdown Police Officer ) and Brandon Kennemore (Ashdown Police Department) in theirindividual and official capacities are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 14, 2018. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JERMAIN D. LEWIS
BRANDON KENNEMORE, Ashdown
Police Officer; JULIE SMITH;
CARL FARMER, Ashdown Police
Officer; KIMBERLY GEISER STRUBE,
Ashdown Police Officer; JOSEPH
GOINGS, Little River Deputy; and
DEPUTY TATUM, Little River Deputy
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Brandon Kennemore, Carl
Farmer, and Kimberly Geiser Strube. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff has filed a response. (ECF No. 45).
The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 6, 2017. (ECF No. 1). He filed a Supplement to the
Complaint on August 11, 2017. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff alleges that on October 5, 2014, he was:
at the residence of Julie Smith . . . when Officer Kennemore [and others] cam [sic]
in and kidnaped me. They took me outside in beginning to search me and asking
me were [sic] is the drugs and I said with drug. So Officer Kennemore said what
ever I founds in the house, that I’m going charge you with it. 1
(ECF No. 7, p. 1). Plaintiff states he was then transported to the Little River County Jail where he
was “strip searched and violated” for three hours. 2
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
In addition to Kennemore, Plaintiff initially named a Jane Doe and several John Doe defendants with the Ashdown
Police Department who were involved in the October 5, 2014 incident. On October 18, 2017, the Ashdown Police
Department notified the Court that Defendants Farmer and Strube were the other officers present during the search
and arrest of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 16).
Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Kennemore, Farmer, or Strube were involved in the strip search at the Little
River County Jail. Plaintiff is asserting claims against Joseph Goings and Deputy Tatum, deputies with the Little River
Sheriff’s department, for subjecting him to an unlawful strip search. Julie Smith is also named as a defendant but to
date she has not been formally served in this action.
Kennemore, Farmer and Strube—all officers with the Ashdown Police Department—violated his
fourth amendment rights when they conducted an unlawful search, wrongfully arrested him, and
falsely imprisoned him in the Little River County Jail. Plaintiff is suing Defendants in both their
individual and official capacities. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. His
complaint does not seek injunctive relief or release from custody.
Defendants Kennemore, Farmer and Strube have filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Heck v. Humphrey, and the Younger
abstention doctrine. (ECF No. 27). In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff admits that he
pled guilty to the possession charges which arose from the search on October 5, 2014, but claims
he did so only after “Brandon Kennemore, Julie Smith, Carl Farmer, and Kimberly GeiserStrube . . . [conspired] together secretly to commit an illegal and wrongful act to accomplish a
legal purpose illegally.” (ECF No. 45, p. 1). Plaintiff also acknowledges in his Response that he
is appealing his conviction for possession. Id. at 45.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a complaint to present “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). “In order to meet this standard, and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ‘a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. While the Court will liberally
construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support his
claims. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
A. Heck v. Humphrey
Plaintiff claims Defendants Kennemore, Farmer, and Strube violated his rights on October
5, 2014, when they allegedly conducted an illegal search of his person, unlawfully arrested him
for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine, and then took him to
the Little River County Jail. The United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), bars Plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit. In Heck, the Court held:
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would
render a conviction or sentence invalid a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive
order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination,
or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
512 U.S. at 486-87. The Heck bar has been applied to claims for injunctive or declaratory relief
and damages. See Smith v. Norris, 40 Fed. Appx. 305 (8th Cir. 2002); Rosendahl v. Norman, 242
F.3d 376 (8th Cir. 2000).
There is no dispute that Plaintiff pled guilty to the possession charges and is now appealing
his conviction. See State v. Jermain D. Lewis, Little River County Circuit Court, 41CR-14-114.3
However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his conviction has been reversed, expunged or
declared invalid. Thus, Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims are barred by Heck. Accordingly,
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/cconnect. This Court may consider “some materials that are part of the public
record or do not contradict the complaint . . . as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings.”
Porus Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999); see also Stahl v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 327
F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The district court may take judicial notice of public records and may thus consider
them on a motion to dismiss.”). Judicial records are considered part of the public record. See Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978).
the Court finds that these claims against Defendants Kennemore, Farmer and Strube should be and
hereby are dismissed.
B. False Imprisonment
Plaintiff also uses the term “false imprisonment” on several occasions in his pleadings.
False imprisonment is a tort under Arkansas state law. Guidry v. Harp’s Food Stores, Inc., 66
Ark. App. 93 (1999). Because Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim for monetary relief does not
arise under the United States Constitution or a federal statute, § 1983 provides no remedy. See
Smith v. Garrett, No. 5:06-cv-9281-JLH, 2006 WL 3791951, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 21, 2006).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim of false imprisonment fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted under § 1983.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is hereby
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Kennemore, Farmer, and Strube in their
individual and official capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?