Johnson v. Peay et al

Filing 79

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 74 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part 75 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action; granting 77 Motion to Dismiss as to Fifth Cause of Action Only. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 8/31/16 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION

KRISTINE BIGGS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
AND MEMORANDUM DECISION

vs.

DANIEL SCOTT PEAY and MORGAN
COUNTY,

Case No. 1:14-cv-147-TC

Defendants.

In this civil rights case, Plaintiff Kristine Biggs Johnson filed five causes of action.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, she brought her first, second, third, and fourth causes of action: the
first two were filed against individual Defendant Daniel Scott Peay (excessive force and violation
of her due process rights), and the third and fourth causes of action name Defendant Morgan
County (unlawful or deficient policies, procedures, and/or protocols, and failure to train and/or
supervise). (See First Am. Compl., Docket No. 3.) Her fifth cause of action, brought against
both Defendants, alleges violation of her civil rights under the Constitution of the State of Utah.
(Id.) The court has original jurisdiction over the § 1983 claims and supplemental jurisdiction
over the fifth cause of action under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a). (Id.)
On August 8, 2016, the court granted qualified immunity to Defendant Daniel Peay (a
sergeant with Morgan County Sheriff’s Office). (See Aug. 8, 2016 Order & Mem. Decision
(Docket No. 73).) That ruling dismissed Ms. Johnson’s first cause of action. Now the

Defendants, in their latest motion for summary judgment, ask the court to grant judgment in their
favor on the remaining claims.1
The court agrees with the Defendants that the second, third, and fourth causes of action
must be dismissed with prejudice because the court found that Sergeant Peay did not violate a
clearly established constitutional right.2 To prevail on the second cause of action (substantive
due process), Ms. Johnson would need to establish that Sergeant Peay’s conduct “exhibited
conscience-shocking ‘deliberate indifference’” toward Ms. Johnson. Green v. Post, 574 F.3d
1294, 1302 (10th Cir. 2009). The court’s finding that Sergeant Peay’s actions were reasonable
under the circumstances precludes her ability to establish the necessary elements of a due process
claim. As for the third and fourth causes of actions against Morgan County, Ms. Johnson would
need to establish, among other elements, that Sergeant Peay’s conduct violated Ms. Johnson’s
constitutional rights. “[A] municipality cannot be liable under § 1983 if the officer in fact
inflicted no constitutional harm.” Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d 410, 419 (10th Cir. 2004)
(citing City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)). Accordingly, the Defendants
are entitled to summary judgment on those three claims.
But Ms. Johnson’s fifth cause of action (violation of the Utah Constitution) is of a

1

Accompanying the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the second, third,
fourth and fifth causes of action is their motion requesting leave to file that motion out of time
(the deadline for filing dispositive motions expired on June 1, 2016). Ms. Biggs did not
expressly oppose that motion, and, in fact, responded to the motion for summary judgment. The
court finds that the Defendants have shown good cause for filing the motion at this stage of the
case. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave to file their motion
requesting judgment on causes of action two through five (Docket No. 74).
2

Indeed, Ms. Biggs does not oppose dismissal of the second, third and fourth causes of
action because, she acknowledges, “those Causes of Action are dependent upon Defendant Scott
Peay not having qualified immunity.” (Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. at 2, Docket No. 78.)
2

different nature. Ms. Johnson opposes the Defendants’ request to dismiss the fifth cause of
action with prejudice and notes that “violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution
. . . involves a different standard, i.e., proof of a ‘flagrant’ violation of rights [which] is not
subject to a qualified immunity defense.” (Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. Summ. J. on Pl.’s Fifth Cause of
Action at 2, Docket No. 78.)
The court declines to reach the merits of Ms. Johnson’s due process claim. The court’s
jurisdiction over the fifth cause of action is purely supplemental. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a)
(West 2016) (court has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims “that are so related to
claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.”). The court had original
jurisdiction over this case because Ms. Johnson filed the suit under the federal civil rights statute
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Clearly Ms. Johnson’s state law claim formed part of the same case or
controversy that arose under federal civil rights law. But the court may, in its discretion, decline
to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which
it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because all of the § 1983 claims have
been dismissed, the court will not consider the fifth cause of action.
Independently, Ms. Johnson filed a Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Cause of Action Without
Prejudice (Docket No. 77) (emphasis in original), for essentially the same reason. She asks the
court to decline supplemental jurisdiction because a dismissal without prejudice will allow her to
file her due process claim in state court. The court grants her motion. But the court’s dismissal
of the fifth cause of action without prejudice is not a comment on the merits or viability of her
claim in state court.
3

ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the court orders as follows:
1.

The Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment on Plaintiff’s Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Docket No. 74) is
GRANTED.
2.

The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Second, Third,

Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action (Docket No. 75), which seeks dismissal of all remaining
claims with prejudice, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Plaintiff’s
Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Cause of Action Without Prejudice (Docket No. 77) is GRANTED.
Specifically, the court dismisses the second, third, and fourth causes of action with prejudice.
The fifth cause of action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
close the case.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge

4