Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Odom v. Kaizer

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

July 26, 2017

Charles Bradford Odom Plaintiff- Appellant
Kenan Kaizer Defendant-Appellee

          Submitted: April 4, 2017

         Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck

          Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

          SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

         State prisoner Charles Odom appeals the district court's[1] grant of summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice in favor of Kenan Kaizer, a former Bismarck police officer, in Odom's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking monetary damages. Odom alleges that Kaizer violated his constitutional rights by deliberately or recklessly giving partially inaccurate testimony in a probable cause hearing. After two prior remands-see Odom v. Kaizer, 638 F.App'x 553 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); Odom v. Kaizer, 417 F.App'x 611 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)-the district court found that Kaizer is entitled to qualified immunity. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

         I. Background

         We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, "viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Jones v. Frost, 770 F.3d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 2014). "Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.

         On April 25, 2005, Kaizer gave partially inaccurate oral testimony in a probable cause hearing that generated an arrest warrant for Odom for charges to which Odom eventually pled guilty, including felony possession of drug paraphernalia and misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

         The incident relevant to Kaizer's testimony occurred fifteen months earlier in January 2004 after Bismarck police responded to a 911 call from Riddle Johnson who had locked himself in a hotel bathroom at the Select Inn and was seeking police assistance because Odom was threatening him with physical harm for failing to pay a drug debt. Upon entering the hotel room where Johnson was locked in the bathroom, officers found drug paraphernalia in plain view along with Odom, Johnson, and Galen Smith-to whom the room was registered. Kaizer, a Bismarck drug task force detective, was called to the scene by responding officers and assumed the role of lead investigator. Odom admitted owning a duffel bag containing a small amount of marijuana located in a vehicle in the hotel parking lot. Odom was the registered occupant of a different hotel room in the Select Inn at the time of the incident.

          During the probable cause hearing fifteen months later in April 2005, Kaizer accurately gave sworn oral testimony that (1) Johnson told officers that Odom threatened to physically harm him if he didn't pay his drug debt, and (2) drug paraphernalia with visible drug residue was found in the room in which Odom was present. However, Kaizer inaccurately testified (1) from memory, that the room was registered to Odom when it was actually registered to Smith, and (2) from faulty interpretation of an evidence receipt, that the marijuana was found in the hotel room when it was actually found in Odom's duffel bag in a vehicle in the parking lot.

         On March 20, 2007, Odom filed his first § 1983 action against multiple defendants, including Kaizer, alleging false information was provided to support his arrest and seeking dismissal of state charges along with damages for pain, suffering, and mental anguish. We summarily affirmed the district court's preservice dismissal of that case. Odom v. Burleigh Cnty. Detention Ctr., 369 F.App'x 767, 768 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

         On December 2, 2010, Odom filed this § 1983 action pro se seeking monetary damages and naming only Kaizer as a defendant. Odom alleged that Kaizer violated his constitutional rights by intentionally or recklessly providing false information in support of the arrest. After the district court's preservice dismissal, this court reversed and remanded finding that Odom's allegations that Kaizer "knowingly gave false information while testifying in support of issuance of an arrest warrant . . . were sufficient to state a claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated." Odom, 417 F.App'x at 611 (noting that a "warrant based on [an] affidavit containing deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for truth violates [the] Fourth Amendment; [an] official who causes such deprivation is subject to § 1983 liability" (citing Bagby v. Brondhaver, 98 F.3d 1096, 1098 (8th Cir. 1996))).

         Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment to Kaizer concluding that Odom's guilty plea was a complete defense to Odom's § 1983 claim. However, we reversed and remanded again, finding that Odom's guilty plea did not foreclose his § 1983 claim because Odom's claim was for violation of his constitutional rights in connection with the issuance of the arrest warrant-not for arrest without probable cause. Odom v. Kaizer, 638 F.App'x at 554. We observed that an official is subject to § 1983 liability for violation of the Fourth Amendment if he or she obtains a "warrant based upon an affidavit containing 'deliberate falsehood' or 'reckless disregard for the truth, '" citing Bagby, 98 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978)). Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we noted that "qualified immunity is appropriate for [a] defendant accused of submitting [a] recklessly false affidavit if a corrected affidavit would still provide probable cause to arrest or search, " again citing Bagby. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We advised that "the district court should decide whether Kaizer is entitled to qualified immunity on the record before the court." Id. at 554 n.1.

         Following our instructions to rule on the qualified immunity claim, the district court found that Kaizer is entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore, to summary judgment, because his faulty testimony was not knowing, reckless, or intentional. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.