Donna Sturkin v. Vicky Patrick ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-60117      Document: 00515230685         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/10/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-60117                    December 10, 2019
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    DONNA STURKIN,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    VICKY PATRICK,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:16-CV-434
    Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiff-Appellee Donna Sturkin filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit
    against Defendant-Appellant Vicky Patrick, a state employee. Sturkin alleged
    that Patrick, in her official capacity as Sturkin’s probation officer in an
    alternative state program, had extorted financial benefits by requiring Sturkin
    (1) as a store cashier, not to charge Patrick for various items during checkout,
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-60117    Document: 00515230685      Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/10/2019
    No. 19-60117
    and (2) as a motel clerk, to allow Patrick and members of her family to room
    there without paying to do so.
    Sturkin’s case was eventually tried to a district court jury. The trial court
    ruled that Patrick was not entitled to qualified immunity, and the jury found
    that Patrick had violated Sturkin’s civil rights for which it awarded $350,000
    in damages to Sturkin. The district court also overruled Patrick’s challenge
    based upon the favorable termination requirement of Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    (1994). The Heck ruling is the only issue Patrick raises on appeal.
    We have reviewed in detail the briefs of the parties and the relevant
    portions of the record on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not
    reversibly err in the challenged ruling.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-60117

Filed Date: 12/10/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/11/2019