McCabe v. Macaulay

• Decision Date: 01 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-CV-73-LRR.,05-CV-73-LRR.
• Citation: 450 F.Supp.2d 928
• Parties: Alice McCABE and Christine Nelson, Plaintiffs, v. Bruce MACAULAY, Michael Parker, Holly Michael, The Iowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch and Linn County, Iowa, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

450 F.Supp.2d 928

Alice McCABE and Christine Nelson, Plaintiffs, v.Bruce MACAULAY, Michael Parker, Holly Michael, TheIowa State Patrol, Troy Bailey, Rick Busch and Linn County, Iowa, Defendants.

No. 05-CV-73-LRR.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

September 1, 2006.

David A O'Brien, Willey, O'Brien, Mullin, Laverty & Hanrahan, LC, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Zachary Carl Richter, USDOJ, Ben Franklin Station ECF, Washington, DC, Jeffrey C. Peterzalek, AAG, Des Moines, IA, Todd Davis Tripp, Linn County Attorney

Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendants.

ORDER

READE, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................930
                  II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ..............................................930
                 III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .....................................931
                  IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND  .....................................................932
                   V. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES ...................................................932
                  VI. RULE 56(F) MOTION .......................................................932
                    A. Law ....................................................................933
                    B. Requested Discovery ....................................................933
                    C. Qualified Immunity Discovery ...........................................934
                    D. Three Exceptions: State Law Claims, Section 1985(3) Equal
                Protection Claim & Substantive Due Process Claim .....................936
                       1. State Law Claims ....................................................936
                       2. Section 1985(3) Equal Protection Claim ..............................937
                       3. Substantive Due Process Claim .......................................938
                    E. Disposition ............................................................938
                 VII. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .............................................938
                     A. State Law Claims ......................................................938
                        1. Westfall Act .......................................................939
                        2. Substitution of the United States ..................................940
                        3. Dismissal without Prejudice ........................................943
                        4. Disposition ........................................................943
                     B. Section 1985(3) Equal Protection Claim ................................943
                     C. Substantive Due Process Claim .........................................948
                     D. Disposition ...........................................................949
                VIII. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER .............................................949
                  IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................950
                

I.INTRODUCTION

There are three motions before the court: (1) the Motion for Summary Judgment(docket no. 67), filed by DefendantsBruce Macaulay, Michael Parker and Holly Michael("Individual Federal Defendants"); (2) the Renewed Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery ("Motion for Protective Order")(docket no. 71), filed by the Individual Federal Defendants; and (3) the Motion to Continue Pursuant to Rule 56(f)("Rule 56(f) Motion")(docket no. 70), filed by PlaintiffsAlice McCabe and Christine Nelson("Plaintiffs").

II.RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On April 7, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a sixcount Third Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand ("Third Amended Complaint").In the first five counts of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Federal Defendants violated five fundamental rights provided to them by the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution.Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Federal Defendants infringed upon their (1) right to freedom of speech (2) right to freedom of assembly, (3) right against unreasonable searches and seizures, (4) right to equal protection and (5) right to due process.SeeU.S. Const. amends.I (speech and assembly), IV (search and seizure) and XIV (equal protection and due process);Iowa Const. art. I, §§ 6(equal protection), 7 (speech), 8 (searches and seizures), 9 (due process) and 20 (assembly).In the sixth count of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the Individual Federal Defendants conspired to violate their constitutional rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).On June 19, 2006, the Individual Federal Defendants filed an Answer, in which they deny the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint.

On June 19, 2006, the Individual Federal Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment.On June 29, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the instant Rule 56(f) Motion.On July 11, 2006, the Individual Federal Defendants filed the instant Motion for Protective Order.

On July 11, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance to the Individual Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.On July 12, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance to the Motion for Protective Order.On July 17, 2006, the Individual Federal Defendants filed a Resistance to the Rule 56(f) Motion.On July 21, 2006, the Individual Federal Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Resistance to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

III LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows "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)(quotingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986)).A fact is material when it is a fact that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law."Anderson,477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.The court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and afford it all reasonable inferences.Baer Gallery, Inc. v. Citizen's Scholarship Found. of Am.,450 F.3d 816, 820(8th Cir.2006)(citingDrake ex rel. Cotton v. Koss,445 F.3d 1038, 1042(8th Cir.2006)).

Procedurally, the moving party bears "the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record which show a lack of a genuine issue."Hartnagel v. Norman,953 F.2d 394, 395(8th Cir.1992)(citingCelotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265(1986)).Once the moving party has successfully carried its burden under Rule 56(c), the nonmoving party has an affirmative burden to go beyond the pleadings and by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e);see, e.g., Baum v. Helget Gas Prods., Inc.,440 F.3d 1019, 1022(8th Cir.2006)("Summary judgment is not appropriate if the non-moving party can set forth specific facts, by affidavit, deposition, or other evidence, showing a genuine issue for trial.").The nonmoving party must offer proof "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Anderson,477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505."`Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.'"Reasonover v. St. Louis County, Mo.,447 F.3d 569, 578(8th Cir.2006)(quotingMayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809(8th Cir.2003)).

IV.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are Iowa residents who disagree with President George W. Bush's policies.In particular, they do not support the war in Iraq.

On September 3, 2004, Plaintiffs protested at a Bush re-election rally at Noelridge Park in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.McCabe carried a piece of paper inscribed with the phrase "Bad War No More" and a "W" with a slash through it.Nelson wore a Kerry-Edwards button.

During the rally, various state and federal law enforcement agents, including secret service agents, confronted Plaintiffs.A man who looked like the former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura told Plaintiffs"we own this property and you have to move."Plaintiffs initially moved.When they later hesitated and asked why other people were not asked to move, they were arrested for criminal trespass.

Plaintiffs were handcuffed and detained in a holding room.They were later transported to the Linn County Jail, where they were processed and strip searched.State law enforcement officials at the Linn County Jail also inspected in between Plaintiffs' butt cheeks.

On December 15, 2004, the Linn County Attorney dropped all criminal charges against McCabe and Nelson.

V.SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES

The parties' motions raise a number of legal issues for the court's consideration.¹In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Individual Federal Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' federal law claims on grounds of qualified immunity and Plaintiffs' state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.In the Rule 56(f) Motion, Plaintiffs ask the court to deny or delay ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment because they have not had an adequate opportunity to conduct essential discovery.In the Motion for Protective Order, the Individual Federal Defendants ask the court to stay all discovery against them until the court determines what, if any, discovery is necessary to resolve their qualified immunity defenses.

The court shall first address Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Motion.To the extent necessary, the court shall then address the Individual Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Protective Order.

VI.RULE56(F) MOTION

In their Rule 56(f) Motion, Plaintiffs ask the court to deny or delay ruling on the Individual Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.Plaintiffs contend that they have had "no opportunity" to conduct discovery in this case.Plaintiffs point out that the Individual Federal Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment early in this lawsuit—on the...