Davis et al v. White

Filing 245

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: HEREBY ORDERED that John Beaird's oral motion for judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED in favor of Officer Beaird on Count II, Henry Davis' substantive du e process claim. FURTHER ORDERED that Michael White's counterclaim against Mr. Davis for battery under state law is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. A separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 03/25/2014. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HENRY M. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BEAIRD,
Defendant, and
MICHAEL WHITE,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
HENRY M. DAVIS,
Counterclaim Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10-CV-1429 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). The trial of this matter was held on March 24 and 25,
2014. At the close of evidence, counsel for Officer John Beaird made an oral motion that the
Court enter judgment on Count II, Henry Davis’ claim for substantive due process violations, as
a matter of law. As outlined in this Court’s Summary Judgment Order, to prevail on his claim,
Mr. Davis had to show that Officer Beaird’s conduct “shocks the conscience.” [Doc. 172.]
“Whether the alleged conduct shocks the conscience is a question of law.” Akins v. Epperly, 588
F.3d 1178, 1183 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Terrell v. Larson, 396 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2005) (en
banc)). “Only the most severe violations of individual rights that result from the ‘brutal and
inhumane abuse of official power’ rise to this level.” White v. Smith, 696 F.3d 740, 758 (8th Cir.

2012) (quoting C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Schs. Indep. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 634 (8th Cir.
2010)). After hearing argument from both sides, the Court found that, based on the evidence
adduced at trial, Officer Beaird’s conduct did not rise to a conscience-shocking level. The Court
therefore entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Officer Beaird on Count II, Mr. Davis’
substantive due process claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).
The only remaining claim was Officer Michael White’s counterclaim against Mr. Davis
for battery under state law. A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims giving rise to original jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lindsey v. Dillard’s, Inc., 306 F.3d 596, 599 (8th Cir. 2002). Having
entered judgment on Mr. Davis’ substantive due process claim, and because Officer White and
Mr. Davis are non-diverse parties, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Officer White’s state law counterclaim.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that John Beaird’s oral motion for judgment as a matter of
law is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment as a matter of law is GRANTED in favor
of Officer Beaird on Count II, Henry Davis’ substantive due process claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael White’s counterclaim against Mr. Davis for
battery under state law is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction.
A separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 25th day of March, 2014.

2

/s/ Nannette A. Baker
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3