Gillpatrick v. Sabatka-Rine, 297 Neb. 880

Background

Two inmates, Gillpatrick (NSP) and Wetherell (NCCW), sought to marry but the Nebraska Dept. of Correctional Services refused to facilitate transport or remote ceremonies, relying on an internal policy and its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-109 requiring physical presence.
The inmates filed an amended complaint asserting § 1983 and related claims, suing three state officials (warden/director-level) in their individual capacities and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus fees.
The district court granted summary judgment for the inmates, finding the Department’s policy and statutory interpretation unreasonably burdened the fundamental right to marry and enjoined officials from denying videoconference marriages.
The officials appealed; they had filed their notice of appeal before the district court ruled on the inmates’ pending attorney-fee request.
The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed jurisdiction and the merits: it held the § 1983 merits ruling was appealable (fee motions governed by federal § 1988), but reversed because injunctive relief under Ex parte Young is available only against officials sued in their official (not individual) capacities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s order was a final, appealable judgment given pending fee request	Kilgore-type rule should make order nonfinal because fees unresolved	Officials: silence on fees is implicit denial when plaintiff didn’t separately move; order final	Held: Order is appealable in § 1983 case because federal § 1988 governs timing of fee requests; prevailing-party status determined after merits
Whether inmates’ § 1983 claim could obtain injunctive relief against officials sued in their individual capacities	Injunction necessary to compel officials to allow videoconference marriages; sued individuals suffice	Officials: individual-capacity suits cannot provide prospective relief against state conduct; Ex parte Young requires official-capacity suits	Held: Injunctive (prospective) relief under § 1983 is only available against officials sued in their official capacities; injunction vacated because plaintiffs sued only individuals
Whether the Department’s interpretation of § 42-109 justified blanket prohibition on remote marriages	Plaintiffs: statute does not forbid videoconference marriages; policy exaggerated and failed Turner analysis	Officials: § 42-109 requires physical presence, justifying policy and refusal to transport	District court (below) found statute ambiguous and policy failed Turner; appellate court assumed merit-of-claim correctness for purposes of capacity ruling
Whether sovereign immunity barred injunctive relief forcing affirmative state action	Plaintiffs: prospective relief allowed against state officials to stop ongoing violations	Officials: injunction would require state to expend resources and thus implicate sovereign immunity	Held: Sovereign immunity does not bar prospective relief that does not require expenditure from the state treasury; but relief must be sought against officials in official capacity

Key Cases Cited

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials sued in their official capacities are not "persons" for § 1983 damages purposes)
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (liability under § 1983 depends on capacity sued; individual-capacity suits can impose personal liability)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (11th Amendment exception allows prospective relief against state officials enforcing unconstitutional laws)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (standard for assessing prison regulations that impinge on inmates' constitutional rights)
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (11th Amendment bars suits against state where state is real party unless exception applies)
White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (attorney-fee requests under § 1988 are collateral to merits and not subject to ordinary postjudgment timing limits)