Pitts v. City of Cuba, 913 F. Supp. 2d 688

Plaintiffs Pitts, King, Copling, and Sharon Pitts (pro se) sued 22 individuals and 8 entities alleging multiple constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 across 24 counts.
Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 180).
The CPD was held not to be a suable legal entity under § 1983 and Count XXI was dismissed; CPD terminated as a defendant.
Plaintiffs alleged Monell liability against the City of Cuba for policy/custom failures in response to complaints, training, and investigations; the court found no genuine policy or custom evidence.
A Monell-based Monell analysis required knowledge of prior incidents and deliberate inaction; court found no pattern or widespread misconduct by the City.
Counts XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII (conspiracy under § 1985/1986) and related § 1983 conspiracy claims against individual defendants were largely dismissed; remaining allegations focused on individual capacity claims against specific defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPD is a suable entity under §1983	Pitts et al. name CPD; allege policy violations	CPD is not a juridical entity	Count XXI dismissed; CPD not suable under §1983
Whether City of Cuba liable under Monell for policy/custom failures	City had policies/customs causing violations	No evidence of a policy or pattern of misconduct	Summary judgment for City on Count XXIV; City Cuba terminated as a defendant
Whether 1985/1986 conspiracy claims survive against defendants	Conspiracies existed to deprive rights	No class-based animus or conspiracy shown	Counts XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII dismissed; no conspiracy claims remaining against defendants under 1985/1986
Whether §1983 retaliation claims against individual defendants survive	Individual acts by board members violated rights	Actions could not be tied to individual constitutional violations; qualified immunity issues	Counts I-III dismissed for individual defendants in official capacity; some remaining claims against individuals in specific contexts denied or dismissed as to certain defendants

Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipality liable for unconstitutional acts via policy or custom; moving force requirement)
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection requires intentional disparate treatment with no rational basis)
Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1999) (elements of § 1983 conspiracy claim; overt act required)
Nolan v. Thompson, 521 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 2008) (class-based animus or protected class required for § 1985; burden of proof high)
Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2010) (two elements of § 1983 claim; causation and color of state law)
George v. City of St. Louis, 26 F.3d 55 (8th Cir. 1994) (probable cause and qualified immunity standards for arrest warrants)
White v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 904 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1990) (non-movant must identify specific facts supporting triable issues)
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1964) (probable cause standard at moment of arrest)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of the force used in seizures; de minimis injuries may be insufficient)
Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable cause analysis; warrant-based arrests)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (due process protections for private violence not guaranteed by state)