United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
JERMAIN D. LEWIS PLAINTIFF
BRANDON KENNEMORE, Ashdown Police Officer; JULIE SMITH; CARL FARMER, Ashdown Police Officer; KIMBERLY GEISER STRUBE, Ashdown Police Officer; JOSEPH GOINGS, Little River Deputy; and DEPUTY TATUM, Little River Deputy DEFENDANTS
O. Hickey, United States District Judge
the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Brandon
Kennemore, Carl Farmer, and Kimberly Geiser Strube. (ECF No.
27). Plaintiff has filed a response. (ECF No. 45). The Court
finds this matter ripe for consideration.
filed his Complaint on July 6, 2017. (ECF No. 1). He filed a
Supplement to the Complaint on August 11, 2017. (ECF No. 7).
Plaintiff alleges that on October 5, 2014, he was:
at the residence of Julie Smith . . . when Officer Kennemore
[and others] cam [sic] in and kidnaped me. They took me
outside in beginning to search me and asking me were [sic] is
the drugs and I said with drug. So Officer Kennemore said
what ever I founds in the house, that I'm going charge
you with it.
(ECF No. 7, p. 1). Plaintiff states he was then transported
to the Little River County Jail where he was “strip
searched and violated” for three hours. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Kennemore, Farmer and
Strube-all officers with the Ashdown Police
Department-violated his fourth amendment rights when they
conducted an unlawful search, wrongfully arrested him, and
falsely imprisoned him in the Little River County Jail.
Plaintiff is suing Defendants in both their individual and
official capacities. He is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. His complaint does not seek injunctive relief or
release from custody.
Kennemore, Farmer and Strube have filed a Motion to Dismiss
arguing that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Heck v. Humphrey,
and the Younger abstention doctrine. (ECF No. 27).
In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff admits that
he pled guilty to the possession charges which arose from the
search on October 5, 2014, but claims he did so only after
“Brandon Kennemore, Julie Smith, Carl Farmer, and
Kimberly Geiser-Strube . . . [conspired] together secretly to
commit an illegal and wrongful act to accomplish a legal
purpose illegally.” (ECF No. 45, p. 1). Plaintiff also
acknowledges in his Response that he is appealing his
conviction for possession. Id. at 45.
8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a
complaint to present “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “In order to meet
this standard, and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), ‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Braden v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at
678. While the Court will liberally construe a pro
se plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to support his claims. See Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
Heck v. Humphrey
claims Defendants Kennemore, Farmer, and Strube violated his
rights on October 5, 2014, when they allegedly conducted an
illegal search of his person, unlawfully arrested him for
possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of
methamphetamine, and then took him to the Little River County
Jail. The United States Supreme Court's ruling in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars
Plaintiff's § 1983 lawsuit. In Heck, the
We hold that, in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other
harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a
conviction or sentence invalid a § 1983 plaintiff must
prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid
by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court's issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
512 U.S. at 486-87. The Heck bar has been applied to
claims for injunctive or declaratory relief and damages.
See Smith v. Norris, 40 Fed.Appx. 305 (8th Cir.
2002); Rosendahl ...