Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine
297 Neb. 880
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Paul Gillpatrick and Niccole Wetherell are incarcerated in different Nebraska prisons and sought to marry; the Department of Correctional Services refused to facilitate transport or a videoconference ceremony based on its policy and its reading of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-109.
- Plaintiffs sued state officials (warden and director) alleging § 1983 and related claims, but their amended complaint named the officials only in their individual capacities and sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel accommodations (including videoconference weddings).
- The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, concluding the Department’s interpretation/policy impermissibly burdened the fundamental right to marry and enjoined the officials and their agents from denying videoconference marriages or enforcing the policy.
- Defendants appealed, arguing among other things that (1) the district court lacked authority under the APA/Declaratory Judgment Act and (2) plaintiffs sued the officials only in their individual capacities and thus could not obtain injunctions under Ex parte Young.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the merits ruling was appealable (because § 1988 governs fee timing in § 1983 cases), but reversed because injunctive relief under § 1983 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 merits order was appealable despite no final attorney-fee determination | Kilgore-type rule should not bar appeal; plaintiffs contended fee timing rules differ in § 1983 cases | Defendants argued silence on fees rendered judgment nonfinal under Olson/Murray | Court: Appealable — federal § 1988 controls fee timing; prevailing-party fee eligibility is collateral and not subject to local pre-judgment motion rules |
| Whether injunctive relief could be granted against officials sued only in their individual capacities under § 1983/Ex parte Young | Plaintiffs sought prospective relief to compel compliance with federal law; characterized claims as seeking to stop unconstitutional enforcement | Defendants argued Ex parte Young applies only to official-capacity suits; injunctive relief is not available against defendants sued only personally | Court: Injunctive relief under § 1983 is available only against officials sued in their official capacities; reversing the injunction |
| Whether sovereign immunity barred the requested prospective relief | Plaintiffs argued Ex parte Young permits prospective relief against state officials to vindicate federal rights | Defendants contended injunction would improperly require affirmative state action and implicate sovereign immunity | Court: Sovereign immunity does not bar prospective relief against officials in official capacity, but plaintiffs had sued only individually, so relief was improper |
| Whether the district court properly interpreted § 42-109 and applied Turner to uphold plaintiffs' right to videoconference marriage | Plaintiffs argued § 42-109 does not prohibit videoconference solemnization and Department's policy lacked penological justification under Turner | Defendants relied on statutory text and regulation to justify policy as limiting presence requirement | Court: Assumed without deciding merits in plaintiffs' favor but reversed on procedural/improper-capacity ground — did not affirm substantive injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (state officials sued in official capacities are not "persons" for § 1983 damages purposes)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (capacity sued, not capacity acted in, determines § 1983 liability; individual-capacity suits permit personal liability)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (suits for prospective relief against state officers enforcing allegedly unconstitutional laws are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (standard for evaluating prison regulations that impinge on inmates' constitutional rights)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states/arms of state; official-capacity claims for prospective relief are distinct)
- White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 (requests for attorney's fees under civil-rights statutes are collateral and not subject to ordinary postjudgment motion time limits)