Jordan Kushner v. Troy Buhta, No. 18-2099 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Section 1983. District court's summary judgment order in favor of all defendants affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2099 ___________________________ Jordan S. Kushner lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Troy Buhta; Ashlee Lange; Kathleen Temple; Kristin Tyra; Eric W. Kaler; Linda Lokensgard lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: March 14, 2019 Filed: June 13, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After being arrested by University of Minnesota Police Officers Ashlee Lange, Kathleen Temple, and Lieutenant Troy Buhta at a lecture at the University of Minnesota Law School, Jordan S. Kushner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against these officers and University Police Sergeant Kristin Tyra, Law School Facilities Manager Linda Lokensgard, and Eric W. Kaler1 (collectively, Defendants). Kushner alleged, in relevant part, that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to record interactions between the police and the public and to challenge the actions of public officials, and retaliated against him for exercising this right; arrested him without probable cause and used excessive force in effecting the arrest, in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights by making false statements in order to support criminal charges against him. Kushner also asserted several tort claims under Minnesota law. The district court,2 in a detailed and well-considered 42-page opinion, granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Kushner’s complaint with prejudice. See Kushner v. Buhta, No. 16-CV-2646 (SRN/SER), 2018 WL 1866033 (D. Minn. Apr. 18, 2018). Kushner appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment. See Dooley v. Tharp, 856 F.3d 1177, 1181 (8th Cir. 2017); Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984, 993 (8th Cir. 2011). We do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by reexamining the applicable legal principles so ably canvassed and applied by the district court.3 Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable legal 1 Kaler is the President of the University of Minnesota. Compl. ¶ 15, Dist. Ct. Dkt. 1. While he is included in the notice of appeal, see Dist. Ct. Dkt. 149, Kushner advances no claim on appeal against Kaler. 2 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 3 Regarding Kushner’s retaliatory-arrest claim, we note that the Supreme Court recently held that “[t]he presence of probable cause should generally defeat a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim.” Nieves v. Bartlett, --- S. Ct. ----, 2019 WL 2257157, at *8 (U.S. May 28, 2019). -2- principles, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants for the reasons stated in its opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -3-
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.
