Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Farr v. Davis

United States District Court, D. Kansas

January 25, 2018

JOAN E. FARR, Plaintiff,
v.
DARYL DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          CARLOS MURGUIA United States District Judge

         Plaintiff 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. 119);
• Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 120);
• Plaintiff's Motion to Strike; or in the Alternative, to Exclude Evidence (Doc 126); and
• Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Evidence (Doc. 127).

         The court takes up the motions to exclude first, followed by the motions for summary judgment.

         Motions to Exclude Evidence (Docs. 126 and 127)

         In 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.

         As 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.

         The 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.

         Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

         As they 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.

         I. ...


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.