Barton v. Heineman
7:11-cv-05000
D. Neb.Apr 15, 2011Background
- Barton filed this in forma pauperis civil action against Heineman, Bruning, Tuma, Hayes, and Doe in the District of Nebraska.
- Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief on federal and state-law claims arising from a May 9, 2009 traffic stop on I-80 in Nebraska.
- Hayes conducted the stop and interrogation; Doe arrived with a canine unit and conducted a canine sniff.
- Barton alleges prolonged questioning, requests to search denied, canine alert, and a subsequent vehicle search that yielded no contraband.
- The court conducts initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismisses monetary claims against NSP due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The court affords Barton opportunities to amend and to clarify claims against Heineman, Bruning, Tuma, and to articulate any remaining federal and state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment bar on NSP monetary claims | Barton asserts monetary relief against NSP is permissible against a state agency. | NSP is immune from monetary damages under Eleventh Amendment. | Monetary claims against NSP dismissed; Eleventh Amendment immunity applies. |
| Fourth Amendment viability of the stop and subsequent conduct | The stop was prolonged, interrogation exceeded scope, and canine sniff/search violated rights. | Investigation reasonably related to the traffic stop; dog sniff permissible if stop lawful and not unreasonably prolonged. | Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Hayes and Doe are plausible and may proceed; factual development needed. |
| Amendment of claims against Heineman, Bruning, and Tuma | Defendants were personally named; no direct conduct alleged yet entitling relief. | No grounds shown for liability; failure to allege participation or supervisory liability. | Court allows 30 days to amend to state a claim against Heineman, Bruning, and Tuma. |
| Equal Protection claim viability | Hayes treated Barton differently as an out-of-state motorist and expanded investigation. | Plaintiff fails to show similarly situated comparators or disparate treatment with adequate facts. | Amendment allowed to clearly state an equal protection claim against Hayes. |
| Remaining federal and state-law claims framework | Additional federal and canine-sniff claims alleged; needs clarifying statutory basis. | Laid out ambiguities; requires precise allegations and defendants. | Court permits amendment with clarified allegations and single consolidated complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (assessment of pleadings for facial plausibility)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (notice-pleading requirements)
- United States v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2008) (traffic-stop duration must be related to lawful purpose)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (dog sniffs during traffic stops must be reasonable in scope)
- United States v. Shafer, 608 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2010) (particularized facts needed to support continued detention)
- United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2005) (dog-sniff during traffic stop context)
- Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 1995) (sovereign immunity and state entities)
- Dover Elevator Co. v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 1995) (agency immunity and sovereign capacity)
- Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309 (8th Cir. 1997) (respondeat superior not available under § 1983)