SMITH v. ALLEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Kelly L. SMITH Plaintiff-Appellant v. Cathleen H. ALLEN, all in their personal capacity and in their official capacity as jointly engaged State actors and Special Prosecutor; Leininger, Smith, Johnson, Baack, Placzek & Allen, the law office of, all in their personal capacity and in their official capacity as jointly engaged State actors and Special Prosecutor; Smith, Johnson, Baack, Placzek, Allen Connick & Hansen, the law office of, all in their personal capacity and in their official capacity as jointly engaged State actors and Special Prosecutor; Central Platte Natural Resources District; Karin L. Noakes, in her individual, personal capacity; Frankie J. Moore, in her individual, personal capacity; Francie C. Riedmann, in her individual, personal capacity; Everett O. Inbody, in his individual, personal capacity Defendants-Appellees

No. 20-2406

Decided: April 14, 2021

Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

Kelly L. Smith, Pro Se Jacqueline M. DeLuca, Mark Collins Laughlin, Fraser & Stryker, Omaha, NE, for Defendants-Appellees Cathleen H. Allen, Leininger, Smith, Smith, Johnson, Baack, Placzek, Allen Connick & Hansen Mark A. Christensen, Nathan D. Clark, Cline & Williams, Lincoln, NE, for Defendant-Appellee Central Platte Natural Resources District James A. Campbell, Attorney General's Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees Karin L. Noakes, Frankie J. Moore, Francie C. Riedmann, Everett O. Inbody

[Unpublished]

Kelly Smith appeals the district court's ¹ dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD), its counsel, and four Nebraska state judges. Upon de novo review, see Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725, 734 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Smith's claims against the judges are barred by judicial immunity, see Schottel v. Young, 687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 2012) (judge is immune from suit, except for non-judicial actions or for actions taken absent all jurisdiction); and that his due process claims were predicated on an issue already decided against him in a prior state court action, see Haberer v. Woodbury Cty., 188 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 1999) (federal courts are obligated to give preclusive effect to issues decided by state courts); Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577, 843 N.W.2d 812, 816 (2014) (elements of issue preclusion under Nebraska law). We also find that Smith's equal protection and conspiracy claims failed, see Robbins v. Becker, 794 F.3d 988, 996 (8th Cir. 2015) (class-of-one equal protection claim failed where plaintiffs did not allege facts showing they were similarly situated to others treated more favorably); City of Omaha Emps. Betterment Ass'n v. City of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 652 (8th Cir. 1989) (conspiracy claim requires plaintiff to allege with particularity that defendants reached understanding to violate his rights); and we find no merit to his allegations of district court bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and we deny CPNRD's motion.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law