Moises A. Quinteros-Orellana filed a motion for summary judgment on April 13, 2026, in his civil rights lawsuit against Deon T. Clay, seeking judgment as a matter of law on claims that Clay violated his constitutional rights. The case, filed on June 18, 2025, alleges violations of the plaintiff's Fourth and First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
In his motion, Quinteros-Orellana argues that 'there are no disputed issues of any material facts in this case and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' The motion relies on multiple forms of evidence, including depositions, body camera footage, and witness videos of the alleged incident.
The plaintiff has assembled what appears to be substantial video evidence to support his claims, including body camera footage from Clay himself, the plaintiff's own video recording of the incident, and additional witness video documentation. The motion also references Clay's deposition testimony as supporting evidence.
The case centers on an incident involving Clay, though the specific details of what transpired remain unclear from the motion filing. The plaintiff's legal team has compiled a comprehensive evidentiary record, including a district court docket sheet that may reference related proceedings.
Clay is represented by attorneys Andrew Miller and Alicia Canfield Lewis of Miller Butler in Rogers, Arkansas. The defense has not yet responded to the summary judgment motion, and the court has not set a hearing date for the matter.
Section 1983 cases allow individuals to sue state and local officials for violations of constitutional rights, with successful plaintiffs potentially recovering attorney's fees under Section 1988. The combination of Fourth and First Amendment claims suggests the incident may have involved both an unlawful search or seizure and restrictions on free speech or expression.
The motion represents a significant procedural step in the litigation, as summary judgment would resolve the case without a trial if granted. The extensive video evidence cited by the plaintiff may prove crucial in demonstrating clear constitutional violations that warrant judgment as a matter of law.