Moore v. City of Desloge, et al., No. 10-2095 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAfter concluding that police violated plaintiff's constitutional rights in seizing items from his residence, a Missouri state trial court suppressed the evidence. Missouri filed an interlocutory appeal of the suppression order in the Missouri Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Plaintiff then brought this civil rights lawsuit against his ex-wife, his son, the City of Desloge, a city police officer, and unidentified defendants. Plaintiff alleged a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against all defendants for violations of plaintiff's civil rights, as well as section 1985 and state law claims for civil conspiracy against all defendants. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the dismissal of the city and the police, alleging various errors. The court rejected plaintiff's arguments under State v. Daniels, holding that plaintiff's collateral estoppel argument lacked merit. The court also held that plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated where the arrest warrant was properly admitted and even if the warrant was admitted in error, plaintiff suffered no prejudice. The court further held that plaintiff was unable to show any material prejudice resulting from the late filing of the police's motion to file their brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court finally held that plaintiff failed to establish that the police officer violated plaintiff's constitutional rights and could not maintain the action against the other officer or the city. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. District court correctly determined plaintiff could not rely upon the offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel doctrine to establish that defendant Officer Malady violated plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as the officer did not have an interest in the outcome of the criminal proceedings against plaintiff; district court did not err in admitting the state court warrant for plaintiff's arrest as the warrant, a self-authenticating, non-hearsay document, was relevant to show the police reasonably believed that there was a warrant for the arrest; even if admission of the warrant was error, the error was harmless; district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting an untimely brief in support of an opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; because plaintiff failed to establish his claim that Officer Malady violated his rights, he could not state a claim that the City failed to properly train or supervise Malady.
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.