Kenneth Hunt v. Harold Smith, et al, No. 09-3098 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on certain of plaintiff's affirmed without comment; jury verdict on remaining claim affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3098 ___________ Kenneth Hunt, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Harold Smith, Officer, Marianna, * AR, in his individual and official * [UNPUBLISHED] capacities, et al., * * Appellees. * __________ Submitted: June 22, 2010 Filed: July 6, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Kenneth Hunt appeals the district court s1 two orders granting partial summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit asserting numerous claims against the City of Marianna, Arkansas, and various City officials, and the entry of judgment on a jury verdict on the remaining claim. 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Mack v. Dillon, 594 F.3d 620, 622 (8th Cir. 2010).2 As to the first order, we agree with the district court that Hunt s claims against the City of Marianna and various City officials were based on speculation. See Binkley v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 602 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (to survive summary judgment, non-moving party must provide sufficient probative evidence based on more than conjecture or speculation). The court did not err in denying Hunt more time to serve one defendant who was sued for his actions as Hunt s public defender. See Gentry v. City of Lee s Summit, 10 F.3d 1340, 134243 (8th Cir. 1993) (public defender not a state actor under § 1983). As to the second order, which the court was not precluded from entertaining, Hunt s probable-cause challenge to his December 2000 arrest fails because the resulting convictions were dismissed on appeal for lack of a speedy trial, not on their merits, see Brown v. Willey, 391 F.3d 968, 969-70 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt s motion to reconsider, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168-70 (8th Cir. 1988). Finally, we reject Hunt s challenge to the jury verdict. We do not second guess a jury s credibility determination, see Parkhurst v. Belt, 567 F.3d 995, 1002 (8th Cir. 2009), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt s motions for recusal, see Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 953 (8th Cir. 2005) (adverse judicial rulings rarely constitute valid basis for recusal). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant Hunt s motions to supplement the record. ______________________________ 2 We address only those claims that Hunt has not waived on appeal, see Meyers v. Starke, 420 F. 3d 738, 742-43 (8th Cir. 2005); and we decline to consider any new claims or allegations, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
