Crawford v. Van Buren County, et al., No. 11-1943 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against officials who seized numerous dogs from a kennel she ran on her property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims against the county under Heck v. Humphrey where plaintiff did not allege that her 163 convictions for animal cruelty had been overturned and plaintiff conceded that several of her allegations underlying such claims were past the statue of limitations. As for the 2006 claims, plaintiff failed to dispute the district court's holding that she failed to exhaust her remedy under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.2. Plaintiff also failed to show an unconstitutional policy or custom was the moving force behind the violation of her rights. The court further held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims against the Humane Society defendants because no evidence supported plaintiff's conspiracy allegations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. Claims related to 2005 raid of plaintiff's kennel were barred by Heck v. Humphrey since they implied the invalidity of her criminal conviction for animal cruelty; with respect to claims arising out of a 2006 raid, the district court did not err in determining plaintiff failed to exhaust her remedy under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.2; plaintiff failed to show an unconstitutional custom or policy of the county was the moving force behind the claimed violations of her rights; claims against the Humane Society defendants were properly dismissed as they were not state actors for Section 1983 purposes since there was no evidence to support plaintiff's claim that they conspired with the county defendants.
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.