Erica Merritt DeGlopper v. Samuel Pennington, Paul Milbrath, Matthew Kanters, and Cindy Hamre Incha

Summary

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an action arising from the execution of a Wisconsin writ of assistance to recover property associated with the Art Shay Archive. The court held that the clerk was not deliberately or recklessly responsible for the plaintiff’s lack of notice, that sheriff’s deputies were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for ministerial actions taken pursuant to the writ, and that the former sheriff lacked personal involvement. The case was ordered closed.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because the undisputed evidence could not support a finding that Hamre Incha intentionally or recklessly deprived DeGlopper of notice, and there was no evidence that she was personally involved in mailing or failing to mail the writ or certification of service.
2. Pennington and Kanters were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because their participation in executing the writ consisted of ministerial or administrative acts performed at the direction of a judge under an official court order.
3. Summary judgment was proper for Milbrath because he was not personally involved in executing the writ, and supervisory authority alone could not establish § 1983 liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the clerk of court violated DeGlopper's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights by failing to provide notice of the writ of assistance and its execution.
2. Whether deputies who carried out ministerial acts under a facially valid court-issued writ of assistance were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from DeGlopper's Fourth Amendment illegal-seizure claim.
3. Whether the former sheriff could be liable under § 1983 based on supervisory authority or the appearance of his typed name on the certification of service when he was not personally involved in executing the writ.

Disposition

other