Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine, 297 Neb. 880

Background

Plaintiffs Paul Gillpatrick and Niccole Wetherell are incarcerated in different Nebraska correctional facilities and sought to marry; the Department of Correctional Services refused to facilitate transportation or telephonic/videoconference ceremonies based on an internal policy and its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-109.
Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims, originally naming officials in their official capacities; after a dismissal motion they amended to sue the three state officials in their individual capacities only and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to allow a videoconference marriage.
The district court granted summary judgment to the inmates, holding the Department’s policy and its interpretation of § 42-109 impermissibly burdened the right to marry under Turner v. Safley and enjoined the officials from denying videoconference ceremonies.
Defendants appealed, arguing among other things that injunctive relief was improper because the officials were sued only in their individual capacities and that sovereign immunity and pleading defects barred relief.
The Nebraska Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, the merits but reversed because under federal law injunctive relief to compel state officials to comply with federal law is available only against officials sued in their official capacities; plaintiffs had sued only individually.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s order was final/appealable given pending fee requests	Gillpatrick/Wetherell: § 1988 governs fee timing so appealable after merits judgment; no separate pre-judgment fee motion required in § 1983 case	Defendants: silence on attorney fees made judgment nonfinal under Nebraska precedent (Olson/Murray/Kilgore)	Held: Appealable — federal § 1988 governs fee timing; merits decision is appealable before fee adjudication
Whether the Department’s policy/interpretation of § 42-109 impermissibly burdened right to marry	Plaintiffs: policy (no transport, no telephonic/videoconference) unreasonably restricts right to marry under Turner	Defendants: policy justified by statute (§ 42-109) and penological/resource concerns; sovereign immunity limits relief	Held: Court did not decide merits on appeal; assumed merits arguable but reversed on procedural/standing ground regarding relief
Whether injunctive relief may issue against state officials sued in their individual capacities under § 1983	Plaintiffs: sought prospective injunctive relief to compel officials to permit videoconference marriages	Defendants: individual-capacity suits cannot be basis for Ex parte Young prospective relief; sovereign immunity and 11th Amendment issues	Held: Injunctive relief to compel state officers to act is available only against officials sued in their official capacities; plaintiffs sued only individually, so injunction improper
Whether sovereign immunity or APA/declaratory-judgment pleading defects bar relief	Plaintiffs: challenged officials’ interpretation and sought declaratory/injunctive relief; APA invoked	Defendants: sovereign immunity and pleading/party defects (failed to name Department) preclude relief	Held: Court declined to resolve state-law pleading issues because § 1983 analysis controlled; sovereign immunity did not bar prospective relief if sued officially, but plaintiffs’ choice to sue individually was dispositive

Key Cases Cited

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (official-capacity suits are treated as suits against the office/state and are not "persons" for § 1983 damages)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (liability under § 1983 depends on capacity sued; individual-capacity suits can impose personal liability)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officers enforcing allegedly unconstitutional statutes can proceed despite 11th Amendment)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (standard for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates' constitutional rights)
White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1982) (attorney-fee requests under § 1988 are collateral to the merits and not governed by ordinary postjudgment motion timing)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (11th Amendment bars suits against states or arms of the state absent waiver)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1999) (sovereign immunity principles and limits on suits against states)
Kilgore v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Services, 277 Neb. 456 (Neb. 2009) (Nebraska precedent on finality where court announced intent to address attorney fees post-bench ruling)