861 F.3d 785
8th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff (proceeding as Henry Roe) alleges Nebraska State Patrol mistakenly posted his real name and photo on the public sex-offender registry beginning in early 2010, harming reputation and employability.
- Roe discovered the listing by spring 2010 and testified to that fact before a Nebraska legislative committee in March 2011.
- Roe filed a tort claim with the Nebraska State Claims Board on December 23, 2013, withdrew it after six months of inaction, and then sued in state court; the State removed to federal court and Roe amended his complaint.
- Claims asserted: negligence under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act; an unlawful taking under the Nebraska Constitution and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-705; and § 1983 claims against the State and unnamed state employees (official and individual capacities) for Fourteenth Amendment violations (due process, equal protection) and other constitutional provisions.
- The district court dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Roe’s negligence claim was time-barred, the takings claim was inadequately pleaded, Eleventh Amendment immunity barred official-capacity § 1983 claims, and the individual-capacity § 1983 claims alleged only negligence (not a constitutional violation) and failed to identify defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of negligence claim under Nebraska State Tort Claims Act | Roe: discovered injury when he learned his listing was erroneous in Dec. 2011; timely filed Dec. 23, 2013 | State: Roe knew of the listing by spring 2010 / Mar 2011 so limitations expired before filing | Held: Claim time-barred; discovery rule accrues when injury known, not when legal significance discovered; continuing-tort doctrine doesn’t save claim |
| Sufficiency of takings claim under Nebraska law | Roe: state action damaged/deprived his property (reputation/use) | State: Roe did not allege property was taken or damaged for public use as required | Held: Dismissed — pleading insufficient to state a takings claim |
| § 1983 official-capacity claims against State | Roe sought money damages from State and officials in official capacity | State: Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity applies; § 1983 does not abrogate state immunity | Held: Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Eleventh Amendment) |
| § 1983 individual-capacity claims (due process/equal protection) | Roe: state employees negligently posted him on registry, violating Fourteenth Amendment rights | State: Allegations show negligence and fail to identify unnamed defendants sufficiently | Held: Dismissed — negligence is not a constitutional violation; unnamed-defendant pleading insufficient to permit post-discovery identification |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and plausibility)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleading leniency)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states not suable under § 1983 for damages)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (negligent conduct does not give rise to substantive due process claim)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (negligence not a due process violation)
- Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254 (requirement to identify unnamed defendants sufficiently)
- Illig v. Union Elec. Co., 652 F.3d 971 (courts may consider public records on Rule 12 motions)
- Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp., 730 N.W.2d 376 (Nebraska continuing-tort doctrine)