Green v. Byrd, No. 19-1132 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the City for depriving plaintiff of her constitutional right to a prompt first appearance in a criminal proceeding. Plaintiff alleged that a district court lacks jurisdiction to conduct a first appearance for a defendant who was arrested and charged in a separate county or judicial district.
The court held that any Arkansas district court may perform pretrial functions as necessary and as authorized by the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the Ashley County district judge had jurisdiction and authority to conduct the first appearance, the court held that plaintiff's constitutional claim necessarily fails. Furthermore, because the City discovered new evidence and presented it promptly to the court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the doctrine of equitable estoppel inapplicable here. The court also held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not properly invoked here because there has been no showing that the City knew of plaintiff's first appearance before the new evidence was discovered or that the City tried to induce her to act to her detriment.
Court Description: [Melloy, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff asserted defendant deprived him of his right to a prompt first appearance on his criminal charges and argued that if he did receive a first appearance it was in separate county or judicial district from the one in which he was arrested and did not constitute a valid first appearance; Arkansas law provides that any Arkansas district court may perform pretrial functions as necessary and authorized by the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure; as such, the district judge in the separate district had jurisdiction and authority to conduct the first appearance, and plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim fails; the district court did nor abuse its discretion in allowing defendant to submit newly discovered evidence establishing the fact of the first appearance after it initially could not find a record of the appearance.
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.