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 a videoconference (or transport) marriage based on an internal policy and its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-109.
Plaintiffs sued state officials (warden and director) in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief and attorney fees.
The district court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, concluded the Department’s interpretation of § 42-109 was constitutionally flawed under Turner v. Safley, and enjoined the officials from denying a videoconference marriage or enforcing the policy.
Defendants appealed, raising jurisdictional issues about finality given pending fee requests and arguing the injunction was improper because plaintiffs had sued officials only in their individual capacities.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held it had appellate jurisdiction (§ 1983 fee timing rules make the merits order appealable) but reversed the injunction because injunctive relief to compel state officials to comply with federal law is only available against officials sued in their official capacities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s merits order was final/appealable while plaintiffs’ attorney-fee request was pending	Gillpatrick: fee request under § 1988 can be sought after prevailing; thus merits order is appealable now	Defendants: silence on fees renders judgment nonfinal unless fee motion was filed before judgment	Held: Merits order is appealable in § 1983 case because federal law (White/§1988) allows postjudgment fee requests; appellate jurisdiction exists
Whether injunctive relief may be granted against state officials sued only in their individual capacities under § 1983	Gillpatrick: sued officials individually and sought prospective relief to compel compliance	Defendants: injunctive relief implicates sovereign immunity and Ex parte Young requires official-capacity suit	Held: Injunctive relief to compel state officers to follow federal law is available only against officials sued in their official capacities; plaintiffs sued only individually, so injunction improper
Whether the Department’s interpretation of § 42-109 (requiring physical presence) permissibly justified the no-videoconference policy under Turner v. Safley	Gillpatrick: § 42-109 does not prohibit videoconference ceremonies; policy is not reasonably related to penological interests	Defendants: § 42-109 requires presence and justifies refusing telephonic/videoconference marriages; resources/security concerns support policy	Held: The district court had ruled (assuming merits) that the policy failed Turner; the Supreme Court did not decide merits because injunction was vacated on capacity grounds
Whether plaintiffs’ APA/declatory-judgment pleading choices deprived the court of authority to grant relief	Gillpatrick: sought relief from officials’ statutory interpretation under APA § 84-911 and declaratory/injunctive relief	Defendants: plaintiffs failed to challenge a valid regulation or name the Department; UDJA required	Held: Court need not resolve these state-law pleading issues because the § 1983 claim governed disposition; primary reversal based on capacity/jurisdiction defects

Key Cases Cited

White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (postjudgment fee applications under federal civil-rights fee statute are collateral and timing rules for altering judgments do not govern § 1988 requests)
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" for § 1983 damages claims)
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)
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (11th Amendment limits suits against states and arms of the state; Ex parte Young is a narrow exception)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations impinging inmates’ constitutional rights are valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
Kilgore v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Services, 277 Neb. 456 (2009) (state case on finality/fee rulings; discussed for distinction)
Olson v. Palagi, 266 Neb. 377 (2003) (treating silence on attorney-fee requests as implicit denial under certain state-law circumstances)
Murray v. Stine, 291 Neb. 125 (2015) (district court’s silence on pending separate fee motions renders judgment nonfinal where motions were pending before judgment)