Nance v. Humane Soc'y of Pulaski Cnty.

• Decision Date: 04 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15-3512,15-3512
• Citation: Nance v. Humane Soc'y of Pulaski Cnty., No. 15-3512 (8th Cir. Aug 04, 2016)
• Parties: Sandra Nance; Marcus Nance Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Humane Society of Pulaski County, et al. Defendants - Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Sandra Nance; Marcus NancePlaintiffs - Appellants v. Humane Society of Pulaski County, et al. Defendants - Appellees

No. 15-3512

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Submitted: August 4, 2016

August 4, 2016

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

[Unpublished]

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Sandra and Marcus Nance appeal the district court's¹ order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actionthey brought against the Humane Society of Pulaski County(HSPC), certain individuals associated with HSPC, Lonoke County, and certain individual officers and members of the Lonoke County Sheriff's Office.The suit arose out of the seizure of over one hundred dogs from the Nances' property in rural Arkansas, as well as the twenty-five month retention of the dogs during the completion of criminal animal-cruelty charges against the Nances.The Nances alleged violations of their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and also asserted several state-law claims against various defendants.The district court dismissed the Nances' federal claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).Reviewing the dismissal de novo, seeMartin v. Iowa, 752 F.3d 725, 727(8th Cir.2014), we affirm.

The Nances' Fourth Amendment claims are barred by collateral estoppel because they unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the search and seizure in the state criminal case charging them with several counts of animal cruelty.SeeSimmons v. O'Brien, 77 F.3d 1093, 1096(8th Cir.1996)("When a federal constitutional issue is previously decided in a state criminal proceeding following a full and fair hearing, issue preclusion will therefore bar relitigation of that issue in a § 1983 action.").We reject the Nances' contention that they did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the search and seizure because the state trial court determined only the issue of consent, and on Sandra's appeal of her conviction, the Arkansas Supreme Court declined to address her alternative argument that an unlawful search had already started before she gave consent.Under Arkansas law, it was Sandra's burden to obtain a ruling on her alternative argument in the state trial court, seeNance v. State, 433 S.W.3d 872, 878(Ark.2014), and her own failure to preserve a particular argument for state appellate review does not render collateral estoppel inapplicable.

The Nances' due process claims arising from the retention of the dogs were properly dismissed because the lack of a pre-deprivation hearing does not violate the constitution where the undisputed facts show the dogs were initially seized out of animmediate concern for their safety and well-being, see, e.g., Reams v. Irvin, 561 F.3d 1258, 1264(11th Cir.2009)(applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to reject a claim that a...