Buckley v. Ray, No. 15-3656 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights by defendants. Plaintiff also sought certification of a class action suit against the United States Attorney General on behalf of African-Americans in Arkansas subjected to equal protection and due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the AG Defendants violated his due process rights when they accessed his sealed trial records. The district court concluded, however, that none of the actions taken by the AG Defendants amount to a brutal abuse of power. In this case, the AG Defendants acted reasonably, particularly in light of Arkansas caselaw allowing the use of expunged records to impeach testimony when the actual innocence of the witness has not been shown. Because the AG Defendants' conduct failed to shock the conscience, no substantive due process violation occurred. Furthermore, because plaintiff had no state-created liberty interest created by the Arkansas expungement statute for the AG Defendants to violate, the AG Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim. The court rejected plaintiff's defamation claim against Attorney General McDaniel because he is entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Finally, plaintiff's Brady v. Maryland claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Colloton and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The Attorney General's office defendants were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that their actions in accessing and referencing his expunged criminal record for his compensation proceedings before the Arkansas Claims Commissions violated his substantive due process rights; the mere act of violating the expungement statute did not amount to a brutal and inhumane abuse of official power literally shocking to the conscience; plaintiff failed to articulate any legally-cognizable liberty interest created by the Arkansas expungement statute, and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on his procedural due process claim; with respect to plaintiff's claim that a misstatement of the record by the Attorney General during his testimony before the legislative subcommittee considering the claim constituted defamation, the Attorney General was entitled to absolute legislative immunity; plaintiff's Section 1983 claims arising out of his wrongful conviction accrued on the date the trial court invalidated his conviction, and this action was brought more than three years after that date and the claims were, therefore, time barred.
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.