Anthony K. v. State
289 Neb. 523
| Neb. | 2014Background
- In 2000 DHHS removed three of the K. children after neglect allegations; the children remained in care for years while parents attempted reunification; later reunified and moved out of Nebraska.
- In 2010 Anthony and Arva K. (on behalf of seven minor children) sued the State, DHHS, 18 DHHS employees (official and individual capacities), and the guardian ad litem under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive/ declaratory relief challenging §§ 43-283.01 and 43-1312.
- Plaintiffs attempted service largely by sending a single certified-mail summons to the Attorney General and certified-mail to DHHS for all individually named employees; many employees no longer worked at DHHS when mail was received.
- The district court dismissed DHHS and most employees for improper service, dismissed claims for monetary damages against the State based on sovereign immunity, and later granted summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims as moot or for lack of standing.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: service on DHHS/employees was insufficient, and sovereign immunity barred all § 1983 suits against the State (including for prospective relief), so plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Attorney General by a single summons properly served DHHS and multiple state employees in their official capacities | Single service on AG that included names in the complaint sufficed | Statute requires separate summons for each state party served through AG; single summons insufficient | Service defective; separate summons required; official-capacity defendants dismissed |
| Whether certified mail to DHHS building properly served employees in their individual capacities | Certified mail to employer address is allowable and sufficient | Mail signed by central DHHS employee was not reasonably calculated to notify individual employees; many had left employment | Not reasonably calculated; individual-capacity service defective; all 18 employees dismissed |
| Whether Nebraska waived sovereign immunity for § 1983 claims or whether Monell-type municipal liability applies to the State | State liable because DHHS acted pursuant to official policy/custom akin to Monell municipal liability | State retains sovereign immunity; Monell exception applies to local governments only; State is not a "person" under § 1983 | State retains sovereign immunity; no waiver for § 1983; Monell exception inapplicable to state; all claims against State barred |
| Whether plaintiffs had standing and whether constitutional challenges were moot | Plaintiffs retained standing to challenge statutes and argued ongoing legal interest; relief requested was prospective | Plaintiffs no longer domiciled in Nebraska and issues are moot; no personal stake | Court declined to reach standing/mootness because sovereign immunity dispositive; earlier district court findings on standing/mootness unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (state sovereign immunity principles)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (state not amenable to suit without consent)
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability for official policy or custom)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are not "persons" under § 1983)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (limitations on suits against states and state officials)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (scope of Eleventh Amendment and remedies)
- Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (background on state sovereignty)
- Doe v. Board of Regents, 280 Neb. 492 (Nebraska standard on notice and certified-mail service)
- Michael E. v. State, 286 Neb. 532 (state immunity in § 1983 context; statement corrected/disapproved here)
- McKenna v. Julian, 277 Neb. 522 (interpretation of Neb. Const. art. V, § 22 regarding waiver of sovereign immunity)