Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Summary Judgment on Wrongful Arrest Reversed

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated and remanded the grant of summary judgment to various state, county, and city defendants by the U.S. District Court of Maryland in a wrongful arrest case.

Tray Carter was twice arrested and held in custody for a total of 42 days on warrants meant for his brother. These arrests occurred even after Tray informed a Baltimore County police officer that his brother, Reginald, had used Tray's name when Reginald was arrested. Following release from his second false arrest, Tray Carter sued in state court the State of Maryland, the mayor and city council of Baltimore, and various law enforcement officers of Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland. The defendants removed the case to federal court. Carter subsequently filed an amended complaint.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all federal claims, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims, and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. Carter appealed.

Carter argued that the district court erred in converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment because he had not been given reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery. He also argued that his amended complaint stated a valid claim for relief. The defendants argued that Carter's amended complaint failed to state a valid federal claim. Further, the defendants argued that it should have been obvious to Carter that the dismissal could be converted to a summary judgment and that the court did not have to give him reasonable time to conduct discovery.

The appeals court disagreed. Both Carter and the defendants relied on documents outside the record in contesting the dismissal motion. By itself, however, use of such documents did not require converting the motion to dismiss to summary judgment. Federal courts can, in some circumstances, consider matters outside the record in a motion to dismiss, the appeals court ruled. In this case, the documents outside the record filed by both parties were public records. The district court could have considered them in the motion to dismiss without conversion to summary judgment.

The appeals court then analyzed Carter's complaint under the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The court held that Carter's amended complaint did state a federal claim for relief and could not be dismissed under that rule.

The district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants was vacated. The court remanded the case with instructions to reinstate supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and to initiate further proceedings. This case is published in the Federal Appendix and is subject to rules governing unpublished cases. See: Carter v. Baltimore County, Maryland, 39 Fed.Appx. 930 (4th Cir. 2002).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Carter v. Baltimore County

[U] Garrett v. Woods, 39 Fed.Appx. 930 (4th Cir. 07/16/2002)

[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


[2] No. 02-6666


[3] 39 Fed.Appx. 930, 2002


[4] July 16, 2002


[5] BANORO GARRETT, PLAINTIFF APPELLANT,
v.
T. R. WOODS; M. FERRELL; SMITH; NORFOLK SHERIFF'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS APPELLEES.


[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-01-776-2)


[7] Banoro Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence Dumville, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.


[8] Before Widener, Michael, and Traxler, Circuit Judges.


[9] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam


[10] UNPUBLISHED


[11] Submitted: June 26, 2002


[12] Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


[13] Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).


[14] Banoro Garrett appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, but modify the district court's order dismissing Garrett's claim against Smith to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. Garrett v. Woods, No. CA-01-776-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2002). We deny Garrett's motion for a transcript at government expense, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.


[15] AFFIRMED