Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine, 297 Neb. 880

Background

Two Nebraska inmates (Gillpatrick and Wetherell), housed at different facilities, sought to marry but were denied because the Department of Correctional Services (Department) will not transport inmates between facilities and interprets Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-109 to require physical presence before an officiant, disallowing telephonic/videoconference ceremonies.
The inmates sued state officials (warden-level and director) in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel accommodation (including videoconference ceremonies) and attorney fees.
The district court granted summary judgment to the inmates on the § 1983 claim, found the Department’s interpretation unconstitutional under Turner v. Safley, and enjoined the officials and their agents from denying videoconference marriages or enforcing the policy based on § 42-109.
Defendants appealed; they argued among other points that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief because the officials were sued only in their individual capacities, and they raised issues about finality given that attorney-fee requests remained pending.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the merits ruling was appealable in a § 1983 action (because fee entitlement under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is collateral and can be sought postjudgment), but reversed and remanded because injunctive relief is not available against officials sued only in their individual capacities; such prospective relief is obtainable only against officials sued in their official capacities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Is the district court’s summary-judgment order appealable while attorney-fee requests under § 1988 remain pending?	Gillpatrick: §1988 fees are collateral; entitlement can be sought after prevailing, so the merits ruling is appealable now.	Officials: silence on fees renders judgment nonfinal under Nebraska precedent; appeal should be dismissed.	Held: Merits order is appealable in a §1983 case because federal law allows postjudgment fee requests under §1988.
2) Did the Department’s policy (based on its reading of § 42-109) impermissibly burden inmates’ right to marry?	Gillpatrick: policy and interpretation bar lawful accommodation (videoconference) and fail Turner scrutiny.	Officials: §42-109 requires presence; policy reasonably prevents unlawful marriages and conserves resources.	Held: The court assumed (without deciding) the district court was correct on the merits, but did not resolve this issue because injunction was vacated on other grounds.
3) Can plaintiffs obtain injunctive (prospective) relief in §1983 against state officials sued only in their individual capacities?	Gillpatrick: sought prospective relief to stop enforcement of policy by the named officials.	Officials: injunctive relief invokes Ex parte Young and 11th Amendment principles, and such relief is available only against officials in official capacities.	Held: Injunctive relief to compel state officials to comply with federal law is available only against officials sued in their official capacities; injunction against individuals was erroneous.
4) Did the district court violate sovereign immunity by ordering affirmative relief that would require state action/resources?	Gillpatrick: prospective relief permissible; district court can enjoin enforcement and interpretations that violate federal rights.	Officials: the injunction would require state to expend resources and implicate sovereign immunity.	Held: Court did not decide sovereign-immunity bar as outcome rested on improper party capacity; noted Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against officials in their official capacity only.

Key Cases Cited

Will v. Michigan Dept. 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) (capacity in which official is sued controls whether individual liability applies under § 1983)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits for prospective relief against state officials to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (standard for when prison regulations that impinge on inmates' constitutional rights are lawful)
White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (attorney-fee requests under § 1988 are collateral and not subject to ordinary postjudgment time limits)
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment principles; limits on suits against states and state officers)
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) (attorney-fee awards under § 1988 are integral to enforcement of § 1983 remedies)