Adrian Dunn v. Michael Mattivi, No. 13-2382 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - Bivens action. In action challenging the search and seizure of Dunn's property, the district court did not err in dismissing the suit for failure to state a claim as the court correctly held Dunn's girlfriend's consent was sufficient to allow the search; district court judgment modified so that the dismissal of the Bivens claim is with prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the pendent state-law claims without prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2382 ___________________________ Adrian L. Dunn lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Michael B. Mattivi, Probation Officer; John 1 Doe, Federal Agent; John 2 Doe, Federal Agent lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2013 Filed: October 23, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Adrian L. Dunn, Sr. appeals the district court s1 pre-service dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se action brought under Bivens v. Six 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971) and state law, challenging the search and seizure of his property. Upon de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A dismissal), this court affirms with modification. Dunn challenged a search of the residence he shared with his girlfriend. The search was conducted by the girlfriend s probation officer, accompanied by two federal law-enforcement officers. The district court correctly held the girlfriend s consent was sufficient to allow a search of the entire premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 186 (1990) (search conducted pursuant to consent of occupant valid as to absent co-occupant who shares, or is reasonably believed to share, authority over area in common). Neither the presence of law-enforcement officers at the search nor the actual motivations for conducting the search change the result. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 (2001) (reasonableness of search evaluated under traditional Fourth Amendment analysis; no basis for examining official purpose); United States v. Brown, 346 F.3d 808, 811-12 (8th Cir. 2003) (no basis for examining official purpose or actual motivations of officers; Knights eliminated stalking horse or investigatory purpose inquiry); cf. United States v. Becker, 534 F.3d 952, 955-57 (8th Cir. 2008) (consensual search of probationer s residence by probation officer and two law-enforcement officers did not violate Fourth Amendment). Because the complaint failed to state a federal claim, the dismissal of Dunn s Bivens claims is modified to be with prejudice. The without-prejudice dismissal of Dunn s pendent state-law claims was within the district court s discretion. See Labickas v. Ark. State. Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (following dismissal of federal claims, court may dismiss state law claims without prejudice). ______________________________ -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.
