United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Lawrence L. Piersol United States District Judge
Robert Wayne Running Shield Sr., filed this pro se lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment (Docket 30) contending that summary
judgment should be granted in its entirety. Running Shield
thereafter filed motions to appoint counsel (Docket 34, 35,
36) but did not respond to the defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Having considered the written record in
this case and for the reasons set forth below, the
defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted
and Running Shield's complaint dismissed without
local rules for this district require that the moving party
on a motion for summary judgment submit a statement of the
material facts as to which it contends there is no genuine
issue to be tried. D.S.D. CIV. LR 56.1(A). The opposing party
is required to respond to each numbered paragraph in the
moving party's statement of material facts, and to
identify any material facts as to which it contends there
exists a genuine material issue to be tried. D.S.D. CIV. LR
56.1(B). All material facts set forth in the moving
party's statement of material facts are deemed admitted
if not controverted by the statement required to be served by
the party opposing summary judgment. D.S.D. CIV. LR 56.1(D);
see also On Target Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Attorney
General of the United States, 472 F.3d 572, 574 (8th
Cir. 2007); see also Northwest Bank & Trust Co. v.
First Illinois Nat'l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 724-25 (8th
Cir. 2003) (holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deem
that plaintiff had admitted all of defendants' statements
of material facts as a sanction for noncompliance with local
summary judgment rules). Such rules are properly intended
"to prevent a district court from engaging in the
proverbial search for a needle in the haystack."
Libel v. Adventure Lands of America, Inc., 482 F.3d
1028, 1032 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing a similar Iowa Local
Rule); see also Huckins v. Hollingsworth, 138
Fed.Appx. 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming district
court's application of D.S.D. CIV. LR 56.1 "even
though those rules prevented it from considering some facts
improperly alleged by [Plaintiffs] that might have been
relevant to the summary judgment motion").
pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se
litigants are not excused from failing to comply with
substantive and procedural law." Burgs v.
Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (citing
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35 n. 46
(1975)). Additionally, a district court has no obligation to
"plumb the record in order to find a genuine issue of
material fact." Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
87 F.3d 256, 260 (8th Cir. 1996). Nor is the court
"required to speculate on which portion of the record
the nonmoving party relies, nor is it obligated to wade
through and search the entire record for some specific facts
that might support the nonmoving party's claim."
Id. Summary judgment could be granted without
further analysis, because a party opposing summary judgment
"may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleading, but... must set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial." FED.R.CIV.P.
defendants filed a Statement of Undisputed Facts (Docket 31)
along with supporting affidavits and exhibits. The
defendants' undisputed facts are recited below:
Robert Wayne Running Shield Sr. ("Plaintiff), pro se,
filed a civil rights action alleging that the Sioux Falls
Police Department and Mayor Mike Huether (collectively
"the Defendants") violated his constitutional
rights when they arrested him 197 times in the previous two
years (2015-2016). Docket 1 at 2; Docket 14; Docket 33-1 at
Between February 10, 2010 and June 1, 2016, Plaintiff was
arrested 113 times and received 42 tickets and/or citations.
Docket 33-2 at 1-12.
majority of Plaintiff s arrests were for criminal trespass
and unlawful occupancy. Id.
Plaintiff would occasionally stay/sleep in abandoned
apartments and/or apartment laundry rooms. Docket 33-1 at
Plaintiff was arrested in mixed groups of people, including,
other Native Americans, African Americans, Whites, and
Hispanics. Id. at 41.
Plaintiff alleges that the arrests were racially motivated
and the result of policies implemented by Mayor Huether,
specifically Mayor Huether's "four points ... in the
Sioux Falls Argus Leader," which included "DUI
checkpoints, saturation patrols ... and ... street sweeps to
clear the streets of street people." Id. at
10-11, 33, 41-42.
Argus Leader article did not mention race. Id. at
Plaintiff was not arrested for a DUI or as the result of a