United States District Court, D. Kansas
JOAN E. FARR, Plaintiff,
DARYL DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURGUIA United States District Judge
Joan E. Farr brings this action pro se, claiming that
defendants Daryl Davis, Dennis Moon, DeAnn Coote, John
Patrick Hall, and Huckleberry Homeowners Association
(“HOA”) violated her constitutional rights under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendants
conspired to deprive her of her rights by stealing her
property and influencing the police to harass plaintiff and
her son. The case is before the court on a number of motions:
• Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
• Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
• Plaintiff's Motion to Strike; or in the
Alternative, to Exclude Evidence (Doc 126); and
• Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Evidence (Doc. 127).
court takes up the motions to exclude first, followed by the
motions for summary judgment.
to Exclude Evidence (Docs. 126 and 127)
these two motions, plaintiff asks the court to disregard
evidence that defendants submitted in support of their
summary judgment motion. She claims that the evidence is not
relevant, and that it was not timely submitted to plaintiff
during the discovery period. Plaintiff asks the court to
disregard the evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
plaintiff admits in her reply, much of evidence she seeks to
exclude was, in fact, disclosed in discovery. But defendants
disclosed some of it after discovery closed, in a
supplemental response. And some of the evidence is in the
nature of rebuttal evidence, and therefore was not given to
plaintiff with initial disclosures.
court concludes that the evidence should not be excluded.
Defendants explained the oversight that led to their
supplemental production of several documents. Supplemental
discovery responses were appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(e). Sanctions are therefore not warranted under Rule
37(c). The court will consider the evidence to the extent it
is relevant and admissible for purposes of summary judgment.
Motion for Summary Judgment
argued in a previously-filed motion to dismiss, defendants
maintain that plaintiff's federal claims must fail
because she cannot establish that defendants were acting
under color of state law. When the court first considered
this argument, the court concluded that plaintiff had
adequately pleaded that defendants conspired with state
actors-thereby potentially making defendants liable for
constitutional claims as state actors. That conclusion,
however, was based on the allegations in plaintiff's
complaint. At this stage of the litigation, plaintiff must
submit evidence in support of her conspiracy theory.
Plaintiff has failed to do so, and the court now concludes
that summary judgment is warranted in favor of defendants.