William Carter v. Julia Hassell , 146 F. App'x 859 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-2171
    ___________
    William G. Carter, and others similarly *
    situated,                                *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Julia Hassell, (SA); Jay Englehart;      *
    Dillian Hogan; Janet Sidebottom,         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 21, 2005
    Filed: October 25, 2005
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    William G. Carter, confined to the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment Center,
    brought an action alleging violations of 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     and state law. On
    defendants’ motion, the district court1 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
    claim. Having reviewed the record and appellate submissions, see Atkinson v. Bohn,
    
    91 F.3d 1127
    , 1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (de novo review), we agree Carter’s
    1
    The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    federal claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment because he named defendants
    only in their official capacities. See Randolph v. Rogers, 
    170 F.3d 850
    , 859 (8th Cir.
    1999) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal court from ordering state officials to
    conform conduct to state law); Morstad v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 
    147 F.3d 741
    ,
    743-44 (8th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment immunity bars § 1983 lawsuit against
    state official in official capacity even if state entity is moving force behind
    deprivation of federal rights); Murphy v. Arkansas, 
    127 F.3d 750
    , 754 (8th Cir. 1997)
    (without clear statement that officials are being sued in personal capacities, complaint
    is interpreted as including only official-capacity claims).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the
    dismissal of the state-law malpractice claim--over which the district court implicitly
    refused to exercise jurisdiction, see Franklin v. Zain, 
    152 F.3d 783
    , 784-86 (8th Cir.
    1998)--to be a dismissal without prejudice, Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 
    78 F.3d 333
    ,
    334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 
    519 U.S. 968
     (1996).
    ______________________________
    -2-