Kramer et al v. Farmer et al
ORDER denying 44 defendants' motion for reconsideration. Signed on 10/12/17 by District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
Ernest J. Kramer and
Ella I. Kramer, Co-Guardians and
Co-Conservators of the Estate of
Christopher Thomas Kramer,
) No. 17-6008-CV-SJ-FJG
Trooper Jim David Farmer, in his Official
and Individual Capacities, et al.,
Pending before the Court is Defendants Rucker, Salsbury, Vaught and Hann’s
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 44). Defendants argue that this Court committed
manifest errors of fact and law in its order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I
of the complaint.
Upon its review of the motion for reconsideration, plaintiff’s suggestions in
opposition, and defendants’ reply, the Court finds that no such manifest errors of fact or
law exist. Instead, the Court (as it must) viewed the facts pled in the complaint and
reasonable inferences based on those facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff. To the
extent that defendants believe the facts are different than what was pled by plaintiff, such
an issue should be brought up on summary judgment. To the extent that the defendant
believes the Court misconstrued the facts as pled, or treated conclusions as facts, the
Court finds that such arguments fail for the reasons stated by plaintiff in its response.
With respect to the alleged errors of law, the Court notes that it was aware of the case
cited by defendants for the first time in their reply brief (United States v. Jackson, 741 F.3d
223 (8th Cir. 1984)). Defendants assert that had this Court been aware of Jackson, it
would have found they had qualified immunity for their actions. Not so. Jackson is
distinguishable for the reasons stated by plaintiff in the response to the motion for
reconsideration; namely, in Jackson the court found the officers had specific and
articulable facts to justify a Terry stop when one of the offenders shouted, “It’s the police,
man, run,” and then the two men fled. See Jackson, 741 F.2d at 223. Further, the
conduct occurred after dark in a St. Louis, Missouri alleyway. United States v. Jackson,
566 F.Supp. 1283, 1284 (E.D.Mo. 1983).
Here, the alleged conduct happened in
daylight, in a neighborhood in Maryville, Missouri, and there is no indication that Mr.
Kramer (who had already been running for exercise) yelled anything at the police.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 12, 2017
Kansas City, Missouri
S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
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?