Gomez v. Elk Point Union County
4:24-cv-04216
D.S.D.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Jose Gomez filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding two arrests: Sioux City, Iowa (2006) and North Sioux City, South Dakota (2008).
- He alleged violations of his constitutional rights during those arrests and subsequent criminal proceedings, asserting abuse of power, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution by law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and his own attorney.
- Gomez’s claims connected to official policies or customs of municipalities and states, seeking $80 million in damages plus injunctive relief, including expungement and disciplinary actions against officials and attorneys.
- The incidents in question occurred well outside the three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, with the federal suit filed in November 2024.
- Gomez also named judicial officials in their individual and official capacities and included previous failed legal actions as part of his argument.
- The district court granted his IFP motion but screened and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations | Claims based on incidents from 2006, 2008, 2020 are actionable | Claims are untimely under three-year limitation | Claims barred; case dismissed as frivolous |
| Sovereign & Judicial Immunity (States, Judges) | States/judges liable for monetary, injunctive relief for alleged constitutional harms | States and judges immune from suit for monetary damages | Claims dismissed: barred by immunity |
| Monell Claim (Municipal/County Liability) | Cities/counties liable for failure to train/supervise resulting in constitutional harms | No policy/custom caused injury; no plausible Monell pattern | No plausible Monell claim; dismissed |
| Claims Against Attorneys & Prosecutor | Attorney/Prosecutor conspired, violated constitutional rights | Attorney not state actor, no meeting of minds; prosecutor immune | Claims dismissed for no state action or immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are immune from § 1983 suits for damages in federal court)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states for monetary relief)
- Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370 (judicial immunity for actions taken in judicial capacity)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions taken in pursuing criminal case)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 for policy or custom)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (appointed/private defense lawyers not state actors for § 1983)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (habeas corpus, not § 1983, is remedy for challenging state court conviction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires more than labels/conclusions)
- Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (malicious prosecution claim requires prosecution ending without conviction)