Goings v. Chickasaw County, Ia

• Decision Date: 06 December 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-CV-2063-LLR.,06-CV-2063-LLR.
• Parties: David GOINGS, LeWine Boucher-Goings and Juanita Goings, Plaintiffs, v. CHICKASAW COUNTY, IOWA; Martin Larsen, Individually and in His Official Capacity; and Todd Miller, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

523 F.Supp.2d 892

David GOINGS, LeWine Boucher-Goings and Juanita Goings, Plaintiffs, v. CHICKASAW COUNTY, IOWA; Martin Larsen, Individually and in His Official Capacity; and Todd Miller, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Defendants.

No. 06-CV-2063-LLR.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

December 6, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Judith M O'Donohoe, Elwood O'Donohoe O'Connor & Stochl, Charles City, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Carlton G. Salmons, Gaudineer, Comito & George, LLP, West Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge.

                I. INTRODUCTION............................................................897
                  II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS..............................................897
                 III. JURISDICTION............................................................899
                  IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.....................................899
                   V. FINDINGS OF FACT........................................................900
                       A. Players.............................................................900
                       B. Plaintiffs' Prior Encounters with Law Enforcement and DHS...........900
                           1. 2001............................................................900
                           2. 2002............................................................901
                               a. Arrest and conviction for manufacturing marijuana...........901
                               b. DHS investigation...........................................901
                           3. 2004............................................................901
                       C. David Goings's Firing from the Hospital.............................901
                       D. Events Giving Rise to the Instant Lawsuit...........................901
                           1. Schultz complains to Sheriff Larsen.............................901
                           2. Sheriff Larsen reports to DHS and Chief Deputy Miller...........902
                           3. Investigator Troyna investigates................................903
                               a. At the DHS office...........................................903
                               b. At the schools..............................................903
                               c. At the Farmstead............................................903
                

                i. Conversation outside the farmhouse......................903
                                  ii. Search of farmhouse.....................................903
                                 iii. Search of grounds.......................................903
                               d. Conclusion..................................................905
                           4. Chief Deputy Miller returns to destroy the marijuana on
                Schultz's property............................................905
                           5. David Goings returns to the Farmstead...........................905
                           6. David Goings is arrested........................................906
                           7. David Goings is booked..........................................906
                       E. State Court Proceedings.............................................906
                  VI. ARGUMENTS...............................................................909
                 VII. JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL.......................................................909
                VIII. COUNT I: PLAINTIFFS' § 1983 CLAIMS......................................911
                       A. Summary of Argument.................................................911
                       B. Consent.............................................................911
                       C. Heck v. Humphrey....................................................914
                       D. Remaining Arguments.................................................915
                       E. Conclusion..........................................................915
                  IX. COUNTS H, HI AND IV: PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW CLAIMS.......................915
                       A. Iowa Code § 670.5...................................................915
                           1. Plain language..................................................916
                           2. State court decisions...........................................916
                           3. Is Iowa Code section 670.5 constitutional?......................917
                               a. Fourteenth Amendment........................................918
                               b. No independent and adequate state grounds...................919
                               c. Section 670.5 is constitutional.............................920
                           4. No substantial compliance.......................................920
                           5. Conclusion......................................................920
                       B. Remaining Arguments.................................................920
                           1. False arrest....................................................920
                           2. Malicious prosecution...........................................921
                   X. DISPOSITION.............................................................921
                

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (docket no. 24), which was filed by Defendants Chickasaw County, Iowa; Martin Larsen; and Todd Miller.

H. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On September 8, 2006, Plaintiffs David Goings, Lewine Boucher-Goings and Juanita Goings filed a four-count Complaint against Defendants.¹ Plaintiffs allege one violation of federal law and three state-law torts.

In Count I, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they infringed upon Plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.² Count I has four parts.³ First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "conducted a search through the pretext of investigating a false child abuse complaint, which they knew to be false, without a warrant and without probable cause, contrary to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment [sic] of the United States Constitution" ("Unreasonable Search Claim"). Complaint (docket no. 1), at ¶ 19(a). Second, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "seized and kept items of personal property during the search, contrary to the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment [sic] of the United States Constitution" ("Unreasonable Seizure of Property Claim"). Id. at ¶ 19(b). Third, David Goings alleges that Defendants "arrest[ed] him without probably [sic] to the Fourth and Fourteen [sic] Amendment to the United States Constitution" ("Unreasonable Seizure of Person Claim"). Id. at ¶ 20. Fourth, David Goings alleges that Defendants "us[ed] excessive force against [him] in the course of his arrest, causing physical injury" ("Excessive Force Claim"). Id. at ¶ 21.

In Count II, Plaintiffs allege defamation against Defendants under the Iowa common law. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "knowingly started and spread false rumors about the Plaintiffs being involved in drug manufacture in their residence," id. at ¶ 28, and "knowingly communicated these defamatory statements to the [sic] members of the law enforcement agencies, including other Chickasaw County deputies, an officer of the Nashua City Police[,] a State Agent and the Department of Human Services, as well as members of the general public," id. at ¶ 29. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' actions "were either intentional or done with reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs ." Id at ¶ 30.

In Count III, David Goings alleges false arrest against Defendants under the Iowa common law. David Goings claims that Defendants "detained or restrained [him] against his will," id. at ¶ 35, and such "detention or restraint amounted to a false arrest, since it was an unlawful restraint of [his] personal liberty of freedom of movement," id. at ¶ 36.

In Count IV, David Goings alleges malicious prosecution against Defendants under the Iowa common law. David Goings claims he was "prosecuted in a criminal proceeding in Chickasaw County District Court," id. at ¶ 42, Defendants caused the prosecution and "[t]he prosecution ended favorably for [David Goings]," id. at ¶ 44. David Goings alleges that Defendants initiated the prosecution without probable cause and with malice.

On December 22, 2006, Defendants filed an Answer, in which they denied the substance of the Complaint. On June 22, 2007, Defendants filed an Amended Answer.

On July 2, 2007, Defendants filed the Motion. On August 23, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance.⁴ On August 30, 2007, Defendants filed a Reply.

On December 6, 2007, the court held a hearing on the Motion. Attorney Judith M. O'Donohoe represented Plaintiffs. Attorney Carlton G. Salmons represented Defendants. The matter is fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. JURISDICTION

The court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I and supplementary jurisdiction over Counts II, III and IV. The court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I, because Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). The court has supplementary jurisdiction over Counts II, III and IV, because these claims are so related to Count I that they form part of the same case or controversy. See id. § 1367(a) ("[T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action with such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy...."). But see id. § 1367(c) (granting district court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under certain circumstances).

IV. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "An issue of fact is genuine when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party' on the question." Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477...