Rick Lynn Stanton v. Cindy Johnson , 13 F. App'x 441 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-1978
    ___________
    Rick Lynn Stanton, also known           *
    as Rickie Lynn Stanton,                 *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                               * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the Southern
    Cindy L. Johnson, Deputy Clerk of       * District of Iowa.
    Court Ringgold County, Iowa; Clerk      *
    of District Court, Ringgold County,     *          [UNPUBLISHED]
    Iowa; Ringgold County Attorney,         *
    Ringgold County, Iowa,                  *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 4, 2001
    Filed: May 9, 2001
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Rick Lynn Stanton appeals the district court’s1 dismissal with prejudice of his
    civil rights action after the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for
    1
    The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern
    District of Iowa.
    summary judgment. Reviewing de novo, we agree with the district court that
    Mr. Stanton failed to state a claim and that the doctrines of sovereign and judicial
    immunity shielded defendants from liability. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
    Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 
    506 U.S. 139
    , 144 (1993) (absent waiver of Eleventh
    Amendment immunity, neither state nor its agencies may be subject to suit in federal
    court); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 
    491 U.S. 58
    , 71 (1989) (official-capacity
    suit against state official is not suit against official but rather is suit against official’s
    office; as such, suit is no different from one against state itself); Edelman v. Jordan, 
    415 U.S. 651
    , 666-68 (1974) (return of monies that were allegedly wrongfully withheld
    from public-assistance-benefits applicants could not be classified as prospective
    injunctive relief, as funds to satisfy award would inevitably come from state’s general
    revenues; award was essentially indistinguishable from damage award against state);
    Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 
    183 F.3d 799
    , 805 (8th Cir. 1999)
    (standard of review); Boyer v. County of Washington, 
    971 F.2d 100
    , 102 (8th Cir.
    1992) (per curiam) (clerk was entitled to absolute immunity for signing and issuing
    arrest warrant regardless of whether judge instructed her to do so because these acts
    are integral parts of criminal judicial process), cert. denied, 
    508 U.S. 974
     (1993).
    Turning to Mr. Stanton’s other arguments on appeal, we find no error in the
    district court’s dismissal of the complaint without granting leave to amend: nothing in
    the record suggests Mr. Stanton ever attempted to amend it. Contrary to his
    suggestion, no claim for an accounting appeared in his complaint, nor was any state law
    claim clearly alleged. See Smith v. St. Bernards Reg’l Med. Ctr., 
    19 F.3d 1254
    , 1255
    (8th Cir. 1994) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires complaint include short and plain
    statement of claim that gives fair notice of plaintiff's claim and grounds for relief).
    Finally, we conclude dismissal with prejudice was proper. See Wright v. Anthony, 
    733 F.2d 575
    , 577 (8th Cir. 1984).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    -2-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-