Wright v. United States, No. 17-2274 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States and the Deputy U.S. Marshals in their individual and official capacities on plaintiff's claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and assault and battery under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). In this case, plaintiff was mistakenly arrested when defendants were executing an arrest warrant for another individual. Applying Missouri tort law, the court held that none of plaintiff's proposed facts contradicted a material fact that the district court relied on in conducting its summary judgment analysis; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the false arrest and false imprisonment claim where plaintiff's arrest and 20-minute detention were justified; defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for abuse of process; and the court's prior holding on qualified immunity was dispositive of plaintiff's assault and battery claim.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Federal Tort Claims Act. For the court's prior opinions, see Wright v. U.S., 545 Fed. Appx 588 (8th Cir. 2013) and Wright v. U.S., 813 F.3d 689 (8th Cir. 2015). The local rules of the Western District of Missouri did not require the district court to deem Wright's list of material facts admitted simply because the government did not directly respond to them; the district court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment on Wright's claims for false arrest and false imprisonment as this court has already determined that his initial arrest and detention were justified; similarly, based on that determination, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Wright's claims for abuse of process; the court's prior holding on qualified immunity is dispositive of Wright's assault and battery claim.
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.