Donna Sturkin v. Vicky Patrick, No. 19-60117 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-60117 Document: 00515230685 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-60117 Summary Calendar FILED December 10, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DONNA STURKIN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. VICKY PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:16-CV-434 Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellee Donna Sturkin filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Defendant-Appellant Vicky Patrick, a state employee. Sturkin alleged that Patrick, in her official capacity as Sturkin’s probation officer in an alternative state program, had extorted financial benefits by requiring Sturkin (1) as a store cashier, not to charge Patrick for various items during checkout, Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-60117 Document: 00515230685 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2019 No. 19-60117 and (2) as a motel clerk, to allow Patrick and members of her family to room there without paying to do so. Sturkin’s case was eventually tried to a district court jury. The trial court ruled that Patrick was not entitled to qualified immunity, and the jury found that Patrick had violated Sturkin’s civil rights for which it awarded $350,000 in damages to Sturkin. The district court also overruled Patrick’s challenge based upon the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Heck ruling is the only issue Patrick raises on appeal. We have reviewed in detail the briefs of the parties and the relevant portions of the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not reversibly err in the challenged ruling. AFFIRMED. 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.