Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine
297 Neb. 880
Neb.2017Background
- Two incarcerated Nebraska inmates (Gillpatrick at NSP and Wetherell at NCCW) sought to marry but were denied because the Department of Correctional Services (DOC) would not transport inmates between facilities and interpreted Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-109 to require physical presence before an officiant, rejecting videoconference or telephone ceremonies.
- The inmates filed an amended complaint suing three DOC officials (Sabatka-Rine, Skrobecki, Kenney) in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law claims, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees.
- The district court granted the inmates summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, holding the DOC policy and its interpretation of § 42-109 impermissibly burdened the right to marry and enjoined enforcement of the policy and denial of videoconference ceremonies.
- The defendants appealed before the district court had ruled on attorney fees and costs; the Nebraska Supreme Court determined it had jurisdiction because § 1988 governs timing of fee requests in § 1983 suits (fees are collateral and only sought after prevailing).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the injunction, holding injunctive relief under § 1983 is available only against officials sued in their official capacities (Ex parte Young framework), and the inmates had sued only in their individual capacities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s order was appealable despite unresolved attorney-fee requests | Kilgore/fee request timeliness need not apply to § 1983; fees under § 1988 are collateral and may be sought after final judgment | Court’s silence on fees treated as denial under state precedent, so order final | Appealable: federal § 1988 controls; entitlement to fees is collateral and may be requested after final judgment |
| Whether DOC policy and interpretation of § 42-109 unlawfully burden inmates’ right to marry | Policy and statutory interpretation unconstitutionally restrict right to marry; videoconference permissible | § 42-109 requires physical presence; DOC legitimately declines transport and telephonic marriages for security/resources | District court decided merits for § 1983 claim in favor of inmates, but Supreme Court did not reach merits here because injunction was improper given pleading posture |
| Whether injunctive relief under § 1983 can be awarded against officials sued in their individual capacities | Injunctive relief appropriate to compel officials to facilitate marriages | Injunctive relief unavailable because plaintiffs sued officials only in their individual capacities; Ex parte Young relief requires official-capacity suit | Held for defendants: injunctive relief under § 1983 is available only against officials sued in their official capacities; injunction vacated |
| Whether sovereign immunity or APA/declaratory-judgment pleading defects bar relief | Plaintiffs argued they sought prospective relief and an APA declaration against officials’ interpretation | Defendants argued sovereign immunity and pleading defects (not suing State or naming regulation) preclude relief | Court assumed it could reach § 1983 claim; on appeal, main reversal based on improper individual-capacity pleadings for injunctive relief; other state-law pleading issues need not be decided here |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official-capacity suits are treated as suits against the office/state and are not "persons" under § 1983 for damages)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (liability under § 1983 depends on capacity sued; individual-capacity suits permit personal liability)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (11th Amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials enforcing allegedly unconstitutional statutes)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation limiting inmates’ rights is valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (attorney-fee requests under § 1988 are collateral to the merits and are not governed by postjudgment motion time limits)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (11th Amendment bars suits against state as party in interest; limitations on relief and the Ex parte Young fiction discussed)