participate in his detention or questioning. The Court finds that there are factual disputes regarding whether Kukowski participated in Nathan Smith’s detention and whether she allowed him to remain handcuffed in violation of his constitutional rights. The Court therefore believes that, based on the record before it, summary judgment on Nathan Smith’s claims against Kukowski is not appropriate. A. THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE WHETHER KUKOWSKI PARTICIPATED IN NATHAN SMITH’S DETENTION AND QUESTIONING. As an initial matter, the Court notes that, in their Response, the Plaintiffs make no attempt to dispute Kukowski’s factual assertions that she did not hear, observe, or experience the detention of Nathan Smith in any way, that she did not speak to or question Nathan Smith, (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). “The district court has discretion to go
holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority holding that the district court has no affirmative obligation to plumb the record to procure material facts holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct  holding that the court had no obligation to search large record extract holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense