Calvin Carrick v. Jennifer Freeman , 709 F. App'x 409 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-1134
    ___________________________
    Calvin Carrick
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Jennifer Freeman, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Police Officer for
    the City of Little Rock; Donna Lesher, Individually and in her Official Capacity as
    a Police Officer for the City of Little Rock; Ronald Morgan, Individually and in
    his Official Capacity as a Police Officer for the City of Little Rock; Stuart
    Thomas, Individually; Kenton Buckner, in his official capacity as former and
    current Chief of Little Rock Police; City of Little Rock, a municipality
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
    ____________
    Submitted: January 3, 2018
    Filed: January 10, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Calvin Carrick appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
    judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the legality of his 2012
    traffic stop, arrest, and prosecution in Little Rock, Arkansas. We limit our review to
    Carrick’s claims against Little Rock Police Officer Jennifer Freeman, as he does not
    contest the dismissal of the other defendants. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 
    459 F.3d 934
    ,
    937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (issue is deemed abandoned on appeal when not discussed in
    brief).
    Following the traffic stop, Carrick was charged and convicted in state court for
    obstruction, resisting arrest, and improper license plate display. Although these
    charges were later nolle prossed, during his state court appeal, we conclude that the
    fact of his convictions prevents him from proving both that the traffic stop and arrest
    were not supported by probable cause, and that Freeman violated his rights by
    participating in his prosecution. See Spirtas Co. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 
    715 F.3d 667
    ,
    670-71 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court may affirm on any basis supported by the record);
    Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 
    690 F.3d 1017
    , 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment
    reviewed de novo); Malady v. Crunk, 
    902 F.2d 10
    , 11-12 (8th Cir. 1990) (conviction
    is complete defense to § 1983 claim that plaintiff was arrested without probable
    cause); see also Brown v. Willey, 
    391 F.3d 968
    , 969 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
    (where state circuit court to which defendants appealed for trial de novo eventually
    dismissed charges for lack of speedy trial, initial convictions were nevertheless
    sufficient to prove probable cause because they were not subsequently overturned
    upon finding of innocence following trial on the merits); Sundeen v. Kroger, 
    133 S.W.3d 393
    , 394, 396-98 (Ark. 2003) (judgment of conviction by court of competent
    jurisdiction--even if later reversed--is conclusive evidence of existence of probable
    cause; holding that initial guilty verdict in Arkansas district court was unaffected by
    eventual nolle prossing of charges, and thus summary judgment was correct because
    1
    The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    without lack of probable cause, plaintiff could not establish elements of malicious
    prosecution).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant
    appellees’ motion to strike.
    ______________________________
    -3-