Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Ideus

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

October 18, 2018

MAURICE MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
DARLA S. IDEUS, Lancaster County District Judge; Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 12, 2018. (Filing No. 1.) He has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e).

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff brings this action against Lancaster County District Court Judge Darla S. Ideus (“Judge Ideus”), in her official and individual capacities. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Ideus' March 6, 2018 order denying his motion to modify child support and his application to proceed in forma pauperis injured his reputation and violated several provisions of the Nebraska Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his right to equal protection of the laws.[1] (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-4.) Plaintiff seems to allege, in conclusory fashion, that Judge Ideus' actions were racially and gender motivated. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.)

         For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1 million. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) Plaintiff also asks for a declaration that Judge Ideus injured his reputation and violated the Nebraska Constitution, [2] 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiff's rights to equal protection of the laws. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-4.)

         II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

         “The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.'” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Sovereign Immunity

         Plaintiff sued Judge Ideus, a state district court judge, in her official capacity and in her individual capacity. Sovereign immunity prevents the court from exercising jurisdiction over claims for damages against Judge Ideus in her official capacity.

         The Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages by private parties against a state. See, e.g., Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 618-19 (8th Cir. 1995); Dover Elevator Co. v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 446-47 (8th Cir. 1995). Any award of retroactive monetary relief payable by the state, including for back pay or damages, is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment absent a waiver of immunity by the state or an override of immunity by Congress. See, e.g., Dover Elevator Co., 64 F.3d at 444; Nevels v. Hanlon, 656 F.2d 372, 377-78 (8th Cir. 1981). A state's sovereign immunity extends to public officials sued in their official capacities as “[a] suit against a public employee in his or her official capacity is merely a suit against the public employer.” Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999).

         Here, Plaintiff brought suit against Judge Ideus in her official capacity. As a district court judge within the Nebraska Judicial Branch, Judge Ideus is a state official, and Plaintiff's official-capacity claims are claims against the state. SeeTyler v. Kimes, No. 8:18CV74, 2018 WL 3057873, at *2 (D. Neb. June 20, 2018) (citing Tisdell v. Crow Wing Cnty., No. CIV. 13-2531 PJS/LIB, 2014 WL 1757929, at *7 (D. Minn. Apr. 30, 2014) (official-capacity claims against state court judge are claims against state)). There is nothing in the record before the court showing that the State of Nebraska waived, or that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.